THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S NO.2563 OF 2000 30 11-2010 BETWEEN; Guntuka Satyanarayana and another ...Appellants vs. The Mandal Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Ponduru, Srikakulam District ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S NO.2563 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per NRLN,J) The appeal is filed against the award in LAOP No.1 of 1999 on the file of the court of Subordinate Judge, Rajam, confirming the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and rejecting the claim for enhancement of compensation. An extent of Ac.3.02 cents of dry land in Sy.Nos.407/1,2, 4 and 7-B of Jogannapeta Village, was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections of society. A draft notification was published on 24-05-1987 and an award enquiry was conducted and fixed the market value at Rs.4,000/- per acre. The claimants relied on a sale deed for part of the same survey number dated 09-02- 1987 to an extent of Ac.0.30 cents which was sold for Rs.6,000/- and claimed that the market value would come to Rs.20,000/- per acre. The sale deed is marked as Ex.A-1 before the court. As the claimants were not satisfied with the awarded compensation, a reference was made for determination of the market value by the court and accordingly the reference was taken. The claimants claimed that the lands under acquisition are more fertile and two paddy crops were raised and they are within the Grampanchayat of Ponduru Mandal and they claimed that the land was sold at Rs.30,000/- per acre. It was also their claim that the land was sold for house sites and the fixation of market value is not proper. The Land Acquisition Officer resisted the claim of the claimants. On behalf of the claimants PWs.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the respondent RW.1 was examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-7. The learned Senior Civil Judge confirmed the award. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the land under acquisition is fertile and has got any potentiality? 2. Whether the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajam is legal and sustainable. POINTS 1 AND 2: The learned counsel for the appellant while reiterating the contentions before the lower court has claimed that Ex.A-1 to A-4 were not properly considered and the evidence of claimants is not assessed. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contends that the evidence is not sufficient to hold that market value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is not correct. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajam while considering the evidence on record found that initially the burden is on the claimants to prove the market value of the acquired lands and further held that unless the burden is discharged by the claimants, no benefit can be extended. The lower court has rejected the claim on the ground that except examining the claimants, they did not place any material evidence to show the potentiality of the land. Specifically reliance is placed on Ex.A-1(sale deed) which is also relating to part of the land under acquisition between the claimant No.1 and 3. The lower court also found that no proof is placed before the court about the cultivation and the potentiality. Ex.A-1 itself refers to the sale as an agricultural land and not as house-site. The lower court also opined that in view of the proximity of the notification and the date of sale under Ex.A-1, there is a chance of fabricating the documents. It is true that none of the documents filed by the claimants reflect any sale transaction prior to the acquisition. Exs.A-1 to A-4 are evidently after 1987. What-ever may be the reasons given by the lower court, the fact remains that the land under Ex.A-1 was registered as a dry land showing that it is cultivable. The oral evidence of PWS.1 to 4 as can be seen from the order reflects the utility and potentiality of the land. The fact cannot be unnoticed that the very purpose of the acquisition is for providing house sites to the weaker sections of society. Therefore, the utility of the land for providing accommodation to the weaker sections and the potentiality as such as house sites is clear apart from the fact of closeness to the village. In this connection, it is useful to refer to a decision reported in Hasnah Walimchand Vs. State of Maharashtra ([1]). Further, by construction of houses for the weaker sections the utility of the neighbouring land is also increased as habitation develops. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the lower court has failed to consider the potentiality on the date of the acquisition and also the fact of future growth. The rejection of the claim of the market value by the lower court is not proper and we find that it is just and reasonable to fix the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per acre including the amount already granted with all attendant benefits under the Land Acquisition Officer. Accordingly the Appeal Suit is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 30th NOVEMBER 2010. TSNR [1] 1998 (2) SCC 388