THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.667 OF 1998 Dated. 04-2-2011 Between: Nainilal and others …Appellants Vs. Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.667 OF 1998 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) The appeal is filed by the claimants seeking further enhancement of the market value of the acquired lands as against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy in O.P.No.32 of 1986. An extent of Ac.2.03 guntas of land was acquired for the purpose of Broad Gauge Railway line and for construction of a Railway Station and the land is situated at Ramakrishna Puram in Sy.No.276/1 and the claimants have got 1/4th share. A draft notification was given and an award enquiry was conducted and the market value was fixed at Rs.18/- per square yard. The claimants were not satisfied with the fixation of the market value and they claimed that the land is potential and in a developed area and they are entitled for compensation at Rs.200/- per square yard. Hence the mater was referred to the civil court. On behalf of the claimants PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Ex.A-1. On behalf of the Referring Officer RW.1 was examined and marked Exs.B-1 and B-2. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation from Rs.18/- to Rs.23/- per square yard. Being not satisfied with the same, the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the market value fixed by the learned Addtioinal Subordinate Judge is legal and sustainable? (2) Whether the claimants are entitled for any further enhancement? (3) To what relief? POINTS:- It is needless to say that the claimants are in the position of the plaintiffs and the total burden is on them to prove the claimed market value. Mere surmises and the value as on the date of hearing of this appeal cannot be taken into consideration as contended by learned counsel for the appellants. PW.1 is the second claimant and according to him the Railway Department acquired the land at Ramakrishna Puram and the acquired land was an agricultural land and it was surrounded by houses and under Ex.A-1 sale deed one Narayana sold to Smt Radha, a property at 100 /- per square yard in the year 1980 and that the land is interior. PW.2 was also examined to prove the Ex.A-1 sale transaction and the potentialities. The learned Senior Civil Judge found that the sale transaction under Ex.A-1 cannot be taken into consideration. It is true that non-examination of the vendors or purchasers under the sale transaction is not necessary, as per the law of the day still the bonafides of the transactions have to be proved. It is also to be proved by acceptable evidence that such land is comparable to the acquired land and it is equal. Apart from it, the land under acquisition is an agricultural land whereas the purchase under Ex.A-1 is said to be on the basis of a square yard. There is no proof the relative advantages of the acquired land and the land under Ex.A-1. Though a claim has been made that number of houses have come in the neighbourhood of the acquired land, there is absolutely no proof and none was examined. No sale transactions were filed by the claimants to prove the potentialities as claimed by them. It may be true as on the date the value of the land at Ramakrishna Puram is high but the court is concerns about the market value in 1980 at the time of acquisition. The lower court found that by the date of notification from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 the acquired land is an agricultural land. The learned Senior Civil Judge therefore taking into consideration the above facts enhanced the market value to Rs.23/- per square yard though there is lot of much evidence to support the claim of the claimants and more so when the burden is on them, the hypothetical theory that the lower court should have taken the potentialities and attempt to rely upon the award contents cannot be allowed to take place on proof. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the claimants have failed to prove that they are entitled for any further enhancement and the enhancement granted by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable. As can be seen from the award, the learned Senior Civil Judge has granted solatium, additional market value with interest thereon. If there is any ambiguity with regard to interest on solatium and the additional market value, it is made clear that the claimants will be entitled to the same as per the law laid down in Sunder Vs. Union of India([1]). But as can be seen from the decree it is not clear and therefore we clarify that the claimants will be entitled to the interest on the solatium and additional market value if already not deposited and received by the claimants. With the above modification the Appeal Suit is allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 04-2-2011 TSNR [1] 2001 (5) ALT 51 (SC).