THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT No.627 of 1995 DT.21-11-2011 Between: Sivuni Sambasivaiah & another … Appellants And The Revenue Division Officer (L.A.O), Jammalamadugu, Cuddapah District & Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Somakonda Reddy Counsel for respondent: Sri The Court made the following JUDGMENT: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR APPEAL SUIT No.627 of 1995 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The appellants herein who are claimants 3 and 4 filed this appeal aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 28-8-1993 in O.P.No.54 of 1989, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Proddatur. An extent of Ac.0-56 cents belonging to the appellants and situate in Moodameedipalli Village, Proddatur Town was acquired for the purpose of construction of quarters for members of Proddatur Cooperative House Building Society Limited, the 2nd respondent herein pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act published in A.P Gazette on 28-7-1982. The draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 26-09-1982 and errata draft declaration was published on 28-7-1982. After conducting the enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award No.1/1982 dated 5-11-1982 fixing the compensation at Rs.375/- per cent, which comes to Rs.37,500/- per acre. At the instance of the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, the matter was referred to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, wherein the civil Court by the judgment dated 28-8-1993 in O.P.No.54/1989 enhanced the compensation and fixed at Rs.525/- per cent which comes to Rs.52,500/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the claimants 3 and 4 seeking further enhancement of compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants 3 and 4 contended that the Court below erroneously declined to take into consideration Exs.B.4 to B.13, certified copies of the Decrees of sub-Court, Proddatur in different O.Ps wherein the land was acquired for the purpose of APSRTC Bus Stand. It is further contended that the property is in the urban area and there is steep rise in the price from year to year, and under Exs.B.4 to B.13, the market value was fixed at Rs.1000/- per cent, whereas in the instant case, the market value was fixed at Rs.525/- only per cent. Therefore, the compensation fixed by the court below is meagre and the appellants are entitled to compensation at Rs.1,000/- per cent. Heard both sides. The land of the appellants herein is in Sy.Nos.576, whereas the land acquired under Exs.B.4 to B.13 relates to Sy.No.142, 143 and 146. The Court below did not place reliance on Exs.B.4 to B.13 on the ground that the claimants have failed to file any town plan or the village plan and no evidence was placed to show that the acquired lands in the instant case are very nearer to the APSRTC Bus-stand or to the developed area of the town. The nature of the land varies from place to place, and even if the present acquired land is considered to be suitable for house sites, no roads were laid and no water and electricity facility was provided. Even according to Ex.B.14 sale deed dated 30-12-1980, which was relied on by the appellants, Ac.0-29 cents was sold for Rs.15,000/- which comes to Rs..517/- per cent, and taking into consideration the Ex.B.14 and keeping in view Exs.B.1 to B.3, the average value of the present land was arrived at Rs.700/- per cent. Admittedly, as the lands were acquired for the purpose of house sites, 25% of the land is required for roads and amenities and other developmental activities, and after deducting 25%, the Court below fixed the compensation at Rs.525/- per cent, which comes to Rs.52,500/- per acre apart from awarding all other benefits. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Court below rightly did not place reliance on Exs.B.4 to B.13 as the lands covered by the aforesaid exhibits are two kilometres away from the acquired lands and the land covered under Ex.B.14 was sold at much lesser price than the market price fixed by the Court below in the present case, and the lands covered under Exs.B.1 and B.2 are of small extent. The Court below rightly fixed the compensation at Rs.525/- per cent, which is just and reasonable. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity legal or otherwise in the conclusion of the Court below. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 28-8-1993 in O.P.No.54 of 1989, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Proddatur are confirmed. No costs. ________________ V. ESWARAIAH,J _________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR,J DATE:21-11-2011 grk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR (The Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) APPEAL SUIT No.627 of 1995 DT.21-11-2011