HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI APPEAL SUIT Nos.1645 of 2003, 1885 of 2003, 2056 of 2003, 2260 of 2003, 3982 of 2003, 4087 of 2003, 146 of 2004, 535 of 2004, 674 of 2004, 958 of 2004 and 2163 of 2004 Dated 7-9-2010. A.S.No.1645 of 2003: Between: Raju Konda Reddy. …Appellant. And: The Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Cuddapah. ...Respondent. A.S.No.1885 of 2003: Between: Sanapureddy Subba Reddy (died) per L.Rs. appellants 2 and 3. …Appellants. And: The Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Cuddapah. ...Respondent. A.S.No.2056 of 2003: Between: Sanapureddy Konda Reddy. …Appellant. And: The Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Cuddapah. ...Respondent. A.S.No.2260 of 2003: Between: Sanapureddy Harinarayana Reddy. …Appellant. And: The Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Cuddapah. ...Respondent. A.S.No.3982 of 2003: Between: Raju Venkata Subba Reddy (Died) Per L.Rs. appellants 2 to 4. …Appellants. And: The Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Cuddapah. ...Respondent. A.S.No.4087 of 2003: Between: Sanapureddy Parvathamma. …Appellant. And: The Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Cuddapah. ...Respondent. A.S.No.146 of 2004: Between: Raju Pedda Venkata Reddy (Died) Per L.Rs. appellants 2 to 5. …Appellants. And: The Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Cuddapah. ...Respondent. A.S.No.535 of 2004: Between: Sanapureddy Chinna Rama Linga Reddy. …Appellant. And: The Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Cuddapah. ...Respondent. A.S.No.674 of 2004: Between: Raju Chinna Venkata Reddy …Appellant. And: The Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Cuddapah. ...Respondent. A.S.No.958 of 2004: Between: Sanapureddy Jayarami Reddy. …Appellant. And: The Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Cuddapah. ...Respondent. A.S.No.2163 of 2004: Between: Sanapureddy Suryanarayana Reddy (died) Per L.Rs. Appellants 2 and 3. …Appellants. And: The Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Cuddapah. ...Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI APPEAL SUIT Nos.1645 of 2003, 1885 of 2003, 2056 of 2003, 2260 of 2003, 3982 of 2003, 4087 of 2003, 146 of 2004, 535 of 2004, 674 of 2004, 958 of 2004 and 2163 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Honourable Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah). All these batch of appeals arise against the common order dated 24-4-2001 in L.A.O.P.Nos.89 of 1985 and batch on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Cuddapah. The appellants herein are claimants. Respondents herein are the Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer. The lands of the claimants of an extent of Ac.13.20 cents covered by S.No.908/1A2/A/1C situated at Chinnachowk village, Cuddapah taluk were acquired by the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act published on 22-10-1970, and an erratum was also published on 18-3-1971, for the purpose of construction of Central Stores, Workshop and M.R.T. Station. In the Award dated 16.4.1980, the Land Acquisition Officer took into consideration the value of the nearer lands in S.Nos. 908/1A, 892/3 and 904/2 as shown in the respective registered sale deeds and awarded a compensation of Rs. 9,000/- per acre for the lands which were acquired under the above said notification. Aggrieved by the said Award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Senior Civil Judge, Cuddapah. Before the reference Court, no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Referring Officer, but Ex.A.1 award was marked. On behalf of the claimants common evidence was adduced in L.A.O.P.No. 89 of 1985 by examining R.Ws.1 to 5 and marking Exs.B.1 to B.12. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and material available on record, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed these appeals. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals and perused the material available on record. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled for further enhancement of compensation? R.W.1 who is the 1st claimant deposed in his evidence that on their request, the Land Acquisition Officer, has referred the matter for enhancement of the market value of the acquired land. On the requisition of the Divisional Engineer, A.P.S.E.B., Revenue Divisional Officer has acquired the land of an extent of Ac.13-20 cents for construction of Central Stores by the Notification issued in the year 1970 and later an erratum was issued in the year 1971. Prior to 1979, no notices were served. He further deposed that later he came to know that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of his land at Rs.90/-per cent and that they have requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Reference Court. With regard to the market value of the land is concerned, he deposed that the surrounding area of the acquired land was well developed even by the date of notification and the acquired land was situated opposite to the District Judge’s Bungalow on its North, abutting the public road leading to Industrial Estate and Sivanandapuram colony. He further deposed that on the southern side of their land, the District Judge’s Bungalow, Government Hostel, Government Arts College, Government I.T.I. and the District Collector’s bungalow are situated. He further deposed that in 1970, the prevailing market value of their land was Rs.750-00 to Rs.800/- per cent and that in 1979, the market value of the land was Rs.3,500/- to 4,000/- per cent. R.W.2 N.Obul Reddy who was the President of Sivananda House Buildings Co-operative Society deposed in his evidence that their society purchased Ac.0.03 cents of site under the original sale deed Ex.B.2 on 13-7-1971 for a sum of Rs.600/- from Rama Das Reddy. He further deposed that in fact, he purchased the site at the rate of Rs.500/- per cent and that on 14-8-1974, 0- 02 ½ cents of site was purchased in the name of his wife at the rate of Rs.600/- per cent under the original sale deed Ex.B.3. He further deposed that in fact it was purchased at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per cent and with an intention to avoid stamp duty, lesser rate was mentioned in the sale deed than the actual rate at which he purchased. It was his further evidence that the land under acquisition was already developed by the date of acquisition. In his cross-examination, RW.2 deposed that the distance between the land purchased for the society and the land acquired is one kilometer. He admitted that there was no Dongalacheru Housing Board Colony, or L.I.C. Divisional Office by the year 1971 and also admitted that by that time except Railway Station and Government Arts College, there was no residential houses beyond Yerramukkapalli on the Eastern side. R.W.3 deposed in his evidence that he is a retired Post Master. He further stated that the vendor of Ex.B.4 is his younger brother and his brother Venkata Subbaiah sold Ac.0.02 ½ cents of land covered by S.Nos.908/1-A and 908/2-A1 which is opposite to the District Judge’s Bungalow was sold to Subhadramma at the rate of Rs.800/- per cent. R.W.4 deposed in his evidence that he is the Village Administrative Officer, Cuddapah Town and previously he worked as Village Karanam of Chinnachowk village during 1980-1984. He further deposed that the market value of the acquired land was about Rs.800/- to Rs.1000/- per cent. R.W.5 is one of the claimants. He deposed that the acquired land is very nearer to Cuddapah Municipality and that he claims Rs.800/- per cent for Ac.2.50 cents for the land of his father and for the rest of Ac.2.50 cents, he claims Rs.750/- per cent. For determining the compensation for the acquired land under 4 (1) Notification of the Act, the market value of the land acquired at the time of acquisition has to be considered. In the instant cases, notification under Section 4 (1) was published on 22-10-1970 and an erratum was published on 18- 3-1971. Except Ex.B.1 sale deed, the other sale deeds Exs.B.2 to B.4 are subsequent to the erratum notification dated 18.3.1971. In so far as Ex.B.1 is concerned, as per the evidence of R.W.2 N.Obul Reddy who was the President of Sivananda House Buildings Co-operative Society, the land under acquisition was opposite to the District Judge’s Bunglow and that the Society sold an extent of Ac. 0.08 cents at the rate of Rs. 200/- per cent under Ex.B.1 and that the Society purchased 0.03 cents of land under Ex:B.2 on 13.7.1971 at the rate of Rs.600 per cent. The Reference Court disbelieved the sale transactions under Exs.B.1 and B.2 as deposed by R.W.2 as it was not explained as to why the society sold Ac.0.03 cents under Ex.B.2. If the evidence of R.W.2 is excluded, there are no other transactions evidencing the value of the lands acquired under Section 4(1) Notification, as deposed by R.W.2. However, the reference Court took into consideration the value of the nearer land in S.No.908/1A of an extent of 0.02 ½ cents, as mentioned in its registered sale deed dated 8.4.1968 at Rs. 12,000/- per acre. The Reference Court also took into consideration the value of the nearer land in S.No.892/3 of an extent of Ac. 0.25 cents as mentioned in its registered sale deed dated 21-6-1969 at Rs. 6,000/- per acre. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the Reference Court ought to have relied on the second sale transaction instead of the first sale transaction and that as the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the marked value of the acquired land at Rs. 9,000/- per acre, it is more reasonable and fair and even if the value of the second sale transaction is taken into consideration, it would have been reasonable. On a consideration of the entire evidence and material on record, we are of the opinion that there is absolutely no documentary evidence reflecting the true and correct value of the acquired lands as on the date of 4 (1) notification except the four sale transactions relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer. However, the Reference Court had rightly taken into consideration the first sale transaction in respect of land of an extent of Ac. 0.02 ½ cents covered by S.No.908/1A, which is the same survey number in which the land in question was acquired. Apart from enhancing the market value of the lands acquired relying on the value of the land as mentioned in first sale transaction, the reference court also granted 30% solatium and interest at 15% p.a. on the enhanced market value till the compensation is deposited. Therefore, we are of the view that the market value fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per acre with all other statutory benefits is fair and reasonable and we do not see any grounds for enhancement of compensation Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Dated 7-9-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI APPEAL SUIT Nos.1645 of 2003, 1885 of 2003, 2056 of 2003, 2260 of 2003, 3982 of 2003, 4087 of 2003, 146 of 2004, 535 of 2004, 674 of 2004, 958 of 2004 and 2163 of 2004 (Judgment delivered by the Honourable Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Dated 7-9-2010.