(1.) The appeal and the Cross-objections reflect the dissatisfaction by the Requisitioning Authority as well as the claimants in determining the compensation in respect of the lands situated in Block No. 4 of Waltair Ward in Visakhapatnam Municipality., By notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894). (for short, "the Act",) dated June 23, 1966, an extent of Ac. 5.37897 sq.
(2.) Sri G. V. L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lower Court having rejected the entire evidence adduced by claimants, committed error of law in placing reliance on item No. 6 of the sales statistics. It is not evidence. Therefore, it is inadmissible. It cannot be looked into. In support thereof, he relied on Collector, Raigarh v. Harisingh Thakur (1) AIR 1979 SC 472 In the absence of acceptable evidence the price fixed in the award is to be accepted. He also contended, relying on S. M. Hadi Jaffery v. Special Deputy Collector, L A (2) 1975-11 An. W R 28 that the lower Court should have deducted 50 per cent of the market value towards developmental expenses. The deduction of 1/3rd by the lower Courtis illegal.
(3.) Sarvasri N V Ranganadnan, Mangu Venkatarao and C Poornaiah, learned counsel for the respondents respectively, resisted, contending inter alia, that Exs. A-1 to A-4 and A-6 were admittedly without any objection thereby the need to examine either the vendors or vendees thereunder has been dispensed with. Having admitted the same, they cannot be rejected unless it is found that they are not genuine documents. That is not the case of the appellant. In support thereof, Sri Ranganadhan relied on Srinivasulu v. L A Officer (3) AIR 1963 A P 279 If it is held that the view of the decisions in Harisingh Thakur's case (1) (supra) and Srinivasulu's case (3) (supra) is not good law, the appeal may be remanded for fresh evidence, to examine either the vendor or vendee of the sales concerned. Sri Poornaiah, learned Counsel further contended that th sale-deeds having been marked, they must be deemed to have been proved and objection cannot be taken subsequently. He has relied on Haji Mohd. v. State of West Bengal (4) AIR 1959 S C 488 and also a passage in Circar's Evidence. The evidence of PW 3 and RW 1 shows that the plans Exs. A-7 and B-8 are admitted to be correct. They reflect the existence of the lands covered by Exs. A-1 to A-4 & A-6 and the finding of the Court below that the respective distances are not established, is illegal. Sri Mangu Venkatarao, learned counsel contended that Ex. A-5 is the sale-deed executed by P W 2, the claimant himself. It was of the year 1960; the lower Court though accepted it to be genuine, committed error in not relying upon that document. However, the lower Court also found that the land possessed of potential value as house sites. Relying upon Ex. A-5, the price fetched in the year 1960 is at Rs. 5/-. Six years have elapsed from the date of sale till date of notification; there was upward rise in the prices; therefore the award of compensation by the lower Court is clearly illegal and the claim at Rs. 16/- per sq. yard is quite reasonable.