HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY LAASMP.No. 1440 OF 2008 IN/AND LAAS. No. 136 of 2010 DATED 9TH MARCH, 2010. BETWEEN: Special Deputy Collector (LA), SRSP, Pochampad …..Appellant/Referring Officer and Smt. Nallola Posani and ors … Respondents/Claimants. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY LAASMP.No. 1440 of 2008 IN/AND LAAS. No. 136 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This appeal is taken up along with the miscellaneous application to condone the delay of 298 days in presenting the appeal. Respondents 2 to 5, 7, 10 to 14, 16, and 18 are represented by Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy. Notices sent to Respondents 1,6,8,9,15,17 and 19 returned, un- served with an endorsement on the postal covers ‘expired’. However, the appellant has not taken necessary steps to bring the Legal Representatives of the deceased respondents/claimants on record. Since the acquisition is of the year 2002 and as the learned Government Pleader for appeals requested to proceed with the matter on merits, and further, as there is no opposition to condone the delay, we condoned the delay in ﬁling the appeal as against the rest of the respondents and dismiss LAASMP.No.1440 of 2008 as against respondents 1,6,8,9,15,17 and 19 as abated. This Appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 ﬁled by the appellant/Referring Oﬃcer, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2006 passed in O.P.No.19 of 2004 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal, whereby the Reference Court enhanced the market value ﬁxed by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer at Rs.17,000/- per acre for the dry lands and Rs.20,000/- per acre for the wet lands, to Rs.42,000/- per acre and Rs.49,000/- per acre respectively. Extents of Ac.35.32 guntas of dry land and Ac.2.31guntas of wet land of the claimants situate at Brahmangaon and Boregaon villages of Mudhole Mandal in Adilabad District were acquired by the Government for the purpose of formation of new silt arresting tank across the local stream near Brahmangaon village. Possession of the lands was taken in advance on 13.11.1999, 7.12.1999 and 1.5.2001. Section 4(1) Draft notiﬁcation and Section 6 Draft declaration under the Land Acquisition Act were published on 4.4.2002 and 5.4.2002 respectively. After conducting the award enquiry, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer passed an award on 23.7.2003 ﬁxing the market value at Rs.17,000/- per acre for the dry lands and Rs.20,000/- per acre for the wet lands and awarded all statutory beneﬁts, except additional market value as provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act on the ground that the possession of the lands was taken in advance. Dissatisﬁed with the same, the claimants sought reference and accordingly the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In order to prove the claim, on behalf of the Referring Oﬃcer P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A.1, copy of the Award was marked. On behalf of the claimants, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1, Registered sale deed dated 15.2.1991 was marked. The Reference Court on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record enhanced the market value as stated supra. The Reference Court also awarded all statutory beneﬁts, including additional market value as provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri Vs. Spl Land Acquisition Officer, 2001(2) LACC SC 539. Hence, the present appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Government Pleader for appeals appearing for the appellant submits that the Reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation solely based on single sale deed transaction. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is exorbitant and without any basis and therefore, the same requires to be decreased. Heard. Perused the record. A perusal of the record discloses that the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer considered 51 sale transactions relating to Brahmangaon and Boregaon village during the period from 1999 to 2002 and relying on the sale transaction covered by document dated 20.6.2001, he ﬁxed the market value as stated supra. The acquired lands are situated in developed village, having all facilities and they are abutting the R& B Road at 1 to 11/2 furlong and eight kilometers from the Mandal Head quarters at Mudhole. The evidence of claimants discloses that they used to raise commercial crops in them and they are capable of fetching net proﬁt of Rs.60,000/- per acre. P.W.1 admitted in his cross- examination that the acquired lands are fertile lands and cotton, chillies, and paddy were used to raise in the acquired lands. Even Ex.B.1, registered sale deed dated 15.2.2001 discloses that dry land of one acre in Sy.No. 191/B of Boregaon village was sold for a sale consideration of Rs.42,000/- per acre and to prove the same, the claimants examined the vendor of Ex.B.1 as R.W.3. The evidence R.W.3 discloses that the cropping pattern of the acquired lands and land covered by Ex.B.1 is one and the same and that the land under Ex.B.1 is very nearer to the acquired lands. Though the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer considered the Ex.B.1, but, did not rely on the same on the ground that the rate is very high and abnormal. It is well settled that it seems to be fair when the highest value shown in the sale deeds relied on by Government should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a diﬀerent course.(See: Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, Ranee of Vuyyur Vs. The Collector of Madras, 1969 (1) AnWR,45). There is nothing suggestive to RW.3 that the land sold at Rs.42,000/- was brought into evidence only to claim higher compensation, which was prior to the notiﬁcation. The sale deed with highest sale consideration can be relied on to ﬁx the market value of the acquired lands provided the sale is bonaﬁde and the land covered by it is similar in nature and fertility with the acquired lands. In the present case, the land acquired is very near to the land sold under Ex.B.1. There is no reason why an average of the sale deeds shoud have been taken in the instance case. Further, there is no material on record to show that the sale covered by Ex.B.1 is not bonaﬁde sale. In view of the same, the market value assessed and ﬁxed by the Reference Court is based on the comparable sale transactions and therefore, the same is just and reasonable. We do not see any merit in the appeal warranting interference with the judgment of the Reference Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ----------------------------------------- JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY -------------------------------------------- JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY DATED 9T H MARCH 2010. Msnr.