HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

L.A.A.S.Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065 and 1066 of 2007

and

XOBJ(SR)Nos.10893, 10887, 10895, 10891, 10889 and 10897 of 2009

Date: -07-04-2011

L.A.A.S.No.1061 of 2007: Between: Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool ……. Appellant

and

G. Madhu

……. Respondent

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

L.A.A.S.Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065 and 1066 of 2007

and

XOBJ(SR)Nos.10893, 10887, 10895, 10891, 10889 and 10897 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: (Per BPR, J)

Since these appeals at the instance of the State and the Cross Objections by the respective claimants arise out of the same proceedings, hence, they are taken up together for disposal.

The appellants in these appeals is the Land Acquisition Officer who seeks to assail, by invoking Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), the award of the Reference Court on a reference made under Section 18 of the Act, for determination of the market rate in respect of the acquired lands. The respective claimants have also filed cross objections seeking further enhancement of the market rate.

The relevant and undisputed data in these proceedings is that as per the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act issued on 24-07- 2004, the lands in question were acquired for the purpose of

construction of Krishnamadoddi service tank under the lift irrigation scheme, a part of Guru Raghavendra Swamy Project, at Polakal village of C. Balgal Mandal. The possession was stated to have been taker earlier on 27-12-2003 itself. Subsequently, the Land Acquisition Officer conducted an enquiry by issuing notices to the claimants and accordingly an award was passed fixing the market rate at Rs.20,000/ per acre. Since the claimants were not satisfied with the said market rate as determined, they sought for reference. Accordingly, all the references were taken up together by the Reference Court and a common enquiry was conducted, whereunder the Land Acquisition Officer was examined as PW-1 and Ex.A-1, which is a village map of Polakal village, was marked on his behalf. On behalf of the claimants, RWs.1 to 4 were examined and three sale transactions in Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. The Reference Court, on consideration of the evidence and the material on record, has fixed the market rate at Rs.1,24,800/- per acre. Hence, these appeals by the State, and also for further enhancement of the market rate, the cross objections by the claimants.

Having heard the learned counsel on either side and also on perusal of the material on record, the question, which arises ultimately for consideration, is as to whether on the facts and circumstances what could be the just and reasonable market rate in respect of the acquired lands as on the date of notification as per the principles laid down under Section 23 of the Act.

Undisputedly the lands were acquired by the aforementioned notification, dated 24-07-2004, and the possession was taken earlier to that, and after following other procedure of local publication, the enquiry was taken up, where certain sale transactions were referred to, and the market rate was determined at Rs.20,000/- per acre. Since the claim is one for enhancement of the market rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, necessarily the burden lies on the claimants, who, on their behalf, examined RWs.1 to 4, of whom RW-1 is a claimant in

one of the references, whereas RW-2 is an attester of an agreement of sale which has culminated into Ex.B-1, dated 21-04-1994. RW-3 is also a claimant in another reference and RW-4 is the Senior Assistant in the S.C. Corporation, Kurnool. Thus, on behalf of the claimants, three sale transactions in

Exs.B-1 to B-3, dated 21-04-1994, 09-08-1995 and 01-04-2004 respectively, were pressed into service. In rebuttal the Land Acquisition Officer himself was examined as RW-1 and except marking the village map as Ex.A-1, no sale transaction is pressed into service. It is curious to note that in matters of this nature, irrespective of the burden, necessarily the enquiry calls upon to determine the market rate as existing on the date of notification. Therefore, both parties have to produce the sale transactions in support of their claim so as to fix the correct market rate. It is also not out of place to mention that normally during the award enquiry before the Land Acquisition Officer, several sale transactions are to be referred to and obtain necessary data. But, however, no attempt either serious or otherwise is being made to secure the certified copies of the transactions or at least the transactions, on which the State wants to rely on, for the purpose of showing lesser market rate and produce them before the Court. Neither there exists any explanation for their failure nor there can be any excuse for the same.

Now coming to the sale transactions, which are on record consisting of, as already stated above, Exs.B-1 to B-3, it is laid down that it is not necessary to examine either the vendor or vendee for the purpose of proving the sale transactions as long as those transactions are through original registered documents. There is no serious dispute in this regard on behalf of the State. The sale transaction under Ex.B-1 is dated 21-04-1994 of which the market rate comes to Rs.60,000/- per acre. In Ex.B-2, sale transaction, dated 09-08-1995, the market rate comes to Rs.90,000/- per acre. Similarly in Ex.B-3, sale transaction, dated 01-04-2004, the market rate comes to Rs.80,000/- per acre. All

these sale transactions are admittedly prior to the date of issuance of notification in the present case, which is dated

24-07-2004. Even otherwise, by taking into account the fact that the possession was taken earlier on 27-12-2003, certainly Exs.B-1 and B-2 do constitute the sales earlier to the date of taking possession. It is only Ex.B-3, which comes after the date of taking possession. Be that as it may. Even Exs.B-1 and B-2, which are much earlier to the date of taking possession or even to the date of issuance of the notification, do show the market rate of Rs.60,000/- and in the next year at Rs.90,000/ per acre respectively, which can be taken as if there is an increase in the demand. Even by average if it is to be taken into account, it comes to in between Rs.70,000/- to Rs.80,000/- per acre.

By giving the margin for the increase annually in the demand even on normal rate as being recognized by the Courts, we do not find any error in regard to the market rate fixed by the Reference Court.

Though the claimants have come forth with the claim for further enhancement of the market rate, however, having regard to the fact that their own documents would show a far lesser amount, it cannot be said that there could have been any other approach or at least any indication to show that there could have been much more rate than the one which is fixed by the Reference Court. In view of the same and especially having regard to the documents as produced on behalf of the claimants, we do not find any justification in the appeals filed by the State or even for any further enhancement in the cross objections filed by the claimants.

Accordingly, all the appeals and the cross objections are dismissed. No order as to costs.

_________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J

__________________

P. DURGA PRASAD, J

Date: 07-04-2011 YCR