THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR A.S.No.701 of 1999 Date: 18.08.2009 Between: The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition), Unit No.IV, Jangareddigudem …. Appellant And Undavalli Kameswararao …. Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondents: THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Unit No.IV, Jangareddigudem, is directed against the order and decree, dated 21.08.1996, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kovvur in O.P.No.20 of 1988, whereby the lower Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs.28,000/- per acre as against Rs.15,500/- per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, by answering reference in favour of the claimant. An extent of Ac.1.88 cents of agricultural land belonging to the respondent/claimant situated in R.S.No.330/5B of Guravaigudem Village was acquired for the purpose of formation of left main canal under Yerrakaluva Reservoir and possession was taken on 20.11.1982. The substance of the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 25.06.1986 and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 23.05.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the formalities, passed Award No.21/1988 dated 05.02.1988 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.15,500/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the fixation of the market value, the claimant sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. On reference being made to the Civil Court, the claimant filed a claim statement claiming Rs.2,40,000/- as compensation for the cashew nut trees, Rs.50,000/- per acre for the land, and Rs.8,000/- as compensation for the borewell. To prove the market value prevalent as on the date of issuance of notification, on behalf of the claimant, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and also examined four more witnesses and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, though no documents were marked, R.W.1 was examined. The learned reference Court rejected Exs.A.1 and A.2 sale deeds as they pertain to the house plots, and fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.28,000/- per acre, on adopting the capitalization method. Questioning the correctness of the fixation of the market value, the Land Acquisition Officer filed the present appeal. We have heard the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. In spite of service of notice on the respondent/claimant, none represents him. P.W.1 deposed that he used to raise two crops in the acquired land with the help of borewell and derive sizable amount; that there are 40 fruit bearing cashewnut trees, a borewell which was dug by him at a cost of Rs.25,000/- in the acquired land; that the trees were yielding fruits since six years prior to the acquisition and they would have yielded fruits for 24 years and he used to get annual income of Rs.10,000/- from those trees; and that the Land Acquisition Officer awarded meagre sum of Rs.2,587/- for the borewell, which was actually costed Rs.25,000/-. Under Ex.A.3-sale deed dated 24.08.1983 executed by Bhadrakalamma, an extent of Ac.0.84 cents of Taduvai Village, land was sold @ Rs.32,000/- per acre. Under Ex.A.4 sale deed dated 12.07.1989, an extent of 650 square yards of site was sold at Rs.20/- per square yard. Since Ex.A.4 is post dated sale deed, the lower Court has rightly not taken the same into consideration. P.W.4 is the attestor of Ex.A.3, which is three years prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. P.W.5 is a resident of neighbouring village and he deposed that under Ex.A.7, copy of the order in O.P.No.6 of 1989, the reference Court awarded compensation for land acquired in Puttagattegum at Rs.30,000/- per acre and its potentiality is equivalent to the claimant’s land. Ex.A.7 clearly discloses that the market value prevalent at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was more than Rs.30,000/- per acre. In view of the same, the lower Court ought to have taken into consideration Ex.A.7 as comparable value in fixing the market value of the acquired land, but the lower Court, for the reasons best known to it, has not taken into consideration the same, and fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.28,000/- per acre. In view of the above, and since the claimant has not filed any Cross Objections, the compensation fixed by the lower Court does not call for any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J ________________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 18.08.2009 va