HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.Nos. 1353, 1798, 1802, 1804, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1808, and 1823 of 2000 COMMON ORDER: All these appeals are preferred, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), by the claimants against the common order dated 15.10.1999 passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.1 to 9 of 1987 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. The appellants herein are the claimants whose lands, situated in Sy.No.517/8 of Bapatla Town, Guntur District of an extent of Ac.0.59 cents, were acquired under the draft notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 27.01.1983 for construction of Microwave Tower and Building. Another extent of Ac.0.14 cents of land situated in the same survey number was acquired, vide G.O.Rt.No.695 dated 04.08.1984. The Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Tenali passed Award No. 4 of 1986, dated 28.02.1986, awarding compensation at Rs. 1,06,667/- per acre and Rs.17,700/- towards the value of the compound wall. The claimants, dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Award has been accordingly referred and taken on file by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bapatla in L.A.O.P.Nos. 1 to 9 of 1987. In all the L.A.O.Ps., common evidence was adduced and the claimants in L.A.O.P.Nos.3, 4 and 8 were examined as CWs.1, 2 and 3 respectively in support of their claim and got marked Exs. A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the referring officer, the Special Commissioner and Director, Survey Settlement and Land Records was examined as RW.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked. Ex.A.1, dated 10.09.1981, relates to the sale transaction, whereunder an extent of Ac. 0.06 cents of land, in Sy. No. 519/8 of Bapatla Town, was sold for a consideration of Rs. 14,000/- which worked out to Rs. 2,33,000/- per acre. Ex.A.2, sale deed dated 05.05.1982, in respect of Ac.0.05½ cents in Sy.No.516/2, was sold at Rs.12,925/-, which worked out to Rs.2,35,000/- per acre. Ex.A.3 relates to the sale deed dated 17.05.1982 in respect of sale of Ac.0.12 cents at Rs.25,000/-, which worked out to Rs.4.00 lakhs per acre. As Exs.A.4 and A.5 were the gift deeds, the said documents are of no use in assessing the market value. The Reference Court held that non-consideration of Exs.A.1 and A.2 on the ground that the persons connected thereto were not examined cannot be justified. In view of Section 51(a) of the Act, the Certified Copies of the registered documents can also be accepted as evidence of the sale transactions. Though the sale transactions covered by Exs.A.1 and A.2 can be taken into account, but as the lands were in different places, it cannot be said that they were comparable sales to that of the lands acquired. In so far as Ex.A.3 is concerned, it covers part of Sy.No.517/8 and the said transaction took place among the claimants only six months prior to the date of notification. The claimants, in their deposition, had accepted that they know about the proposed acquisition since the lands, which were part of their survey numbers, were acquired pursuant to the sale deed dated 17.09.1980 for erection of Mircowave Tower. Hence, the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Reference Court rightly discarded the sale transaction covered by Ex.A.3. The copy of the award was marked as Ex.B.5. Ex.B.3 was the combined rough sketch. As the award was marked as Ex.B.5, the contents of the award can be considered while determining the market value of the lands acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer had taken into account the statistics pertaining to eight transactions furnished by the Tahsildar, Bapatla during the crucial period. Sl.Nos. 1 and 2 relate to different survey numbers; Sl.Nos. 3 and 4 relate to Sy.Nos.517-6 to 9 reflecting the sale at Rs.1,20,635/- per acre. Therefore, the said transactions are relevant and comparable sales. Sl.Nos.5 and 6 relate to Sy.Nos.516 to 9 reflecting sale transactions of Ac.0.29.47 cents and Ac.0.16.59 cents which worked out to Rs.1,60,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer having taken the sales of Sl.Nos.5 and 6, deducted 1/3rd of the amount for roads, drains etc. As the lands covered by Sl.Nos.5 and 6 of the award were also acquired for erection of Microwave Tower, the question of deducting 1/3rd does not arise. Therefore, the sale transactions covered by Sl.Nos.5 ad 6 are relevant and comparable sales. There cannot be any dispute that the lands covered by Sl.Nos. 5 and 6 and that the acquired lands are in respect of same survey number and for similar purpose. Hence, the claimants are entitled to the compensation without any deduction. In the instant case, the notification is dated 27.01.1983 i.e. more than two years after the fixation of the market value by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, the Reference Court taking into consideration the escalation at 10%, arrived at Rs.2,00,050/- per acre and, from that amount, it has deducted 1/3rd towards development charges. Hence, we are of the opinion that it would be just and reasonable to fix the market value at Rs.2,00,050/- per acre without any deduction. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. However, it is made clear that the claimants are entitled for other statutory benefits including interest on solatium and additional market value. No costs. V.ESWARAIAH,J NOUSHAD ALI,J Date:10.08.2010 usd