SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR Vs. KALAGA LAKSHMI KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An extent of Ac. 3-35 guntas of land in Survey No. 555 situate at Gollaguda village, Nalgonda Taluk, Nalgonda District, belonging to the respondent herein, was acquired by the Government. The publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was made in the Gazette on 11-1-1979 indicating that the land is acquired for the purpose of construction of new broadguage railway line from Bibinagar to Nadikude. Possession was taken on 19-7-1979. The land acquired so far for the purpose of construction of railway line has been categorised into three categories viz., A,B and G and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 4000/- per acre. Aggrieved by that, the claimant got the matter referred to he Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in OP No. 169 of 1983. The learned Subordinate Judge considered the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 and Exs. A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the Referring Officer, Ex. B-1 was marked. Ex. A-1 is the copy of the sale deed in Urdu dated 26-8-77, Ex. A-2 is the copy of the sale deed in Urdu dated 8-6-1978, Ex. A-3 is the copy of the sale deed dated 5-4-1978, Ex. A-4 is agreement of sale dated 18-9-1978, Ex. A-5 is the statement of the respondent herein before the Land Acquisition Officer dated 5-1-1982. Ex. A-6 is the application, Ex. A-7 is also the application of the respondent dated 5-1-1982 and Ex. A-8 is the copy of the sale deed dated 27-7-1978. In this matter, after enquiry, the learned Subordinate Judg enhanced the market value from Rs. 4000/- per acre to Rs.19/- per square yard.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader contended that Exs. A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-8 relate to small extents of land and they cannot be taken into account for the purpose of comparable sales to determine the compensation that is payable to an area which is larger in extent. As there are different claimants and different applications, the OPs are registered separately though the notification is one and the same. The purpose of acquisition, the nature of the acquisition and the area that is involved have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the market value. The extents sold under Exs. A-1 to A-3 roughly range between 190 and 200 square yards. The transactions under Exs. A-1 to A-3 took place within a short span of one year. Therefore, they cannot be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the land in question.

(3.) The above sale deeds Ex. A-1 to A-3 and A-8 have been brought into existence only from August 1977 to boost up the market value. So the documents under Exs. A-1 to A-3 and A-8 relating to small extents of lands within a short span of time cannot be given due weight and cannot be taken into consideration. There is no other material on record. Unless the documents mentioned in the award are marked, this Court is not competent to look into those documents. In the circumstances, an opportunity has to be given to both the parties to adduce evidence in support of the claim. It is curious to note that the very same Judge who passed the judgment in this case has granted Rs.30,000/- per acre in one case and Rs. 19/- per square yard in another case, when the acquisition notification is one and the same. Suffice it to state, we find that there is no material on record to arrive at such a conclusion by the learned Subordinate Judge.