THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO A.S.NO. 432 OF 1998 J U D G M E N T: Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed The Sub-Collector, Medak is the appellant herein. He filed this Appeal assailing the legality and validity of the order passed by the Subordinate Judge at Medak in O.P. No. 137 of 1987, dated 31.07.1996, whereby and whereunder the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced from Rs.34/- to Rs.70/- per square yard. The brief facts of the case are as follows: A small extent of land, admeasuring 136.18 square yard situated at Kummarigadda locality of Medak Town was acquired for the purpose of road widening, by issuing a draft notification, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 16.10.1980. The Land Acquisition Officer, after taking into account and consideration the sale transactions that took place in the vicinity of the land in question, passed an award, fixing the market value at Rs 34/- per square yard. The claimant protested the award and thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the civil Court for proper determination of the market value of the land in question. In the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Medak, the claimant has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. He has examined himself as P.W.1 and filed Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, R.W.1 was examined. The learned Subordinate Judge, placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in Rani of Voyoor v. Collector, Madras[1], wherein it has been held that the claimants are entitled to the highest value that was existing in the vicinity at the relevant point of time, and based on the sale transactions for the years 1978, 1979 and 1980, enhanced the market value to Rs.70/- per square yard. Alleging that the enhancement made by the learned Subordinate Judge is exorbitant, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred this Appeal. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals contended that the learned Subordinate Judge, while enhancing the market value of the land in question, should have considered the other factors, like nature of land, its potential value, etcetera. Admittedly, the land acquired was a small extent. Since the value of the Appeal is less than Rs.4,000/-, we do not propose to examine the matter in great detail. A glance at the order under appeal reveals that the learned Subordinate Judge has appreciated the matter in a right perspective, keeping in view the ratio laid down in the judgment in Rani of Voyoor v. Collector, Madras and the sale statistics at the relevant point of time. Further, P.W.1 has clearly deposed that the market value of the land in the vicinity in the year 1977 is Rs.67.25 ps. and that the subject land has more potential value than the other lands. In his cross-examination, R.W.1 also admitted that in the year 1979, the sale statistics reveal the market rate at Rs.70/- per square yard, in the said locality. Therefore, we are of the view that no exception can be taken to the order under Appeal. The Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. The claimant is entitled to all statutory benefits including interest on 30% solatium from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act till the date of the Award. --------------------------- Ghulam Mohammed, J --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 22nd December 2009 ksld [1] 1968(2) Supreme Court Land Journal 869