PEESAPATI VENKATARAMANA BHASHYAKACHARYULU Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BHIMAVARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the Second petitioner having been aggreived by the compensation at Rs. 20,000/- per acre granted by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram in O.P.No. 67/1984 on his file.

(2.) Land measuring about Ac. 4.13 cents in S.No. 70/3 etc., was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites. Section 4 (1) notification was published in the gazette on 8-12-1983. Possession was taken on 18-2-1984. The Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 2-3-1984 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre. On reference P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the petitioner and Exs. A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, M.R.O. Veeravasaram was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B- 1 to 1B-10 were marked. Considering the evidence on record, the lower Court passed an order on 31-8-1988 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/ - per acre. It is against that, the claimants have filed the appeal claiming enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre.

(3.) Ex.A-4 is the registration extract of the sale deed in respect of 00.04 cents of land situate in R.S.No. 514/7 which was sold for Rs. 7,000/-. As no one connected with the document was examined, as rightly observed by the Lower Court, this document cannot be taken into consideration to assess the value of the land that was acquired in this case. Ex.A-5 is another sale deed for 00.05 cents of land, date'd 8-5-82. Vendor under this document is examined as P.W.4. The land under Ex.A-5 was sold for Rs. 6,000/-. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.4, it does not inspire confidence. The person who is in dire necessity may purchase the land at a higher rate. Even otherwise, the sale deeds for small extents of lands cannot be taken into consideration for assessing the value of large extents of land. This Court also took the same view in a recently pronounced judgment dated 19-4-1993 in A.S.No. 1565/91 and A.S. 2087/91. In Bhagavathulu vs. Special Tahsildar & LA. Officer the Supreme Court also held that the transaction in regard to smaller property cannot be taken as a real basis for fixing the compensation for larger tracts of property.