The State Of A.P. vs B. Odelu
2022 Latest Caselaw 1170 Tel

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
                               AND
                THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

                          A.S.NO.3710 OF 2003

                 JUDGMENT     (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice M.Laxman)

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated

28-03-2001 in O.P.No.16 of 1997 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at

Mahabubabad, where-under the reference court has enhanced the

compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.36,000/- acre. Aggrieved by the

same, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO).

2. The facts disclose that the lands of the respondents were

acquired for excavation of tail channel. The notification under

Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 03.04.1991,

and advance possession was taken on 16.03.1990. The extent of the land

acquired was Acs.3.03 ½ gts., and award was passed on 04.07.1995,

fixing market value at Rs.10,000/- per acre. The respondents not satisfied

with the fixation of the market value, sought reference.

3. The respondents, to support their case, examined P.Ws.1 to 5

and relied upon Ex.C-1, sale deed dated 29.11.1983. The LAO examined

R.W.1, and relied upon Exs.B-1 and B-2.

4. The reference court after appreciating evidence on record, more

particularly Ex.C-1, which is the sale deed of the year 1983 and by giving

escalation, fixed the market value at Rs.36,000/- per acre.

5. During the pendency of appeal, appeal against respondents 2, 3

and 5 was dismissed for non-compliance of payment of batta, and notices

were served only on respondents 1 and 4. Thus the appeal survives only

as against respondents 1 and 4.

6. The main contention of the learned Government Pleader for

Appeals is that as per existing Standing Orders, sale transactions within

three years of the date of acquisition have to be considered before giving

escalation, but without considering the said fact, the reference court has

given escalation, which according to him is not proper.

7. As seen from the impugned reference court order, respondents

have examined P.W.5, the party to the sale transaction under Ex.C-1. As

per the evidence and recitals of the sale deed, the sale transaction is

relating to 10 gts., for consideration of Rs.5,000/-, and per acre it comes

to Rs.20,000/- and sale was done in the year 1983.

8. Undisputedly, there are no sale transactions existing in the

village where the acquisition was done within three years as claimed by

the learned Government Pleader. The Standing Orders do not bind the

adjudicatory authority and evidence of sale transaction, which is genuine,

can be relied upon, and there is nothing on record to show that Ex.C-1

was created to inflate the market value. When such is the case,

considering the long gap in between the sale transaction, and date of

acquisition, the court can justly give escalation, which the normal rule is

10%. The reference court has rightly given the escalation to the existing

sale transaction, which is relied upon by it. We do not find any

irregularity in accepting the evidence by the reference court in fixing the

compensation. Therefore, the appeal requires to be dismissed.

9. In the result the appeal is dismissed.

10. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

No order as to costs.

---------------------------------------------

A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J

-----------------------------------------------

M.LAXMAN,J DATE:15--03--2022 AVS