L A O Vs. T BHASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An extent of Ac.9-07 guntas of dry land situate in Sy.Nos.146 and 155 of Bheemaram village, Warangal district was acquired for the purpose of excavation of Kakatiya Canal The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 12-3-1979. That notification relates to some other lands as well. The Land Acquisition Collector by his Award dated 22-2-1980 awarded compensation at Rs.3,100/- per acre and a sum of Rs.21,873/- for the well (including Syphon system).

(2.) On reference under Section 18-of the Act the Subordinate Judge, Warangal enhanced the compensation by fixing the market value at Rs.10,000/- per acre. For the well and 'syphon system', the compensation was increased and fixed at Rs.35,000/-. Aggrieved by this Award of the civil Court, the State filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Act. The claimant-Respondent filed his cross- objections seeking enhancement of compensation at Rs.18,000/- per acre.

(3.) Before the lower Court, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1. His father was examined as P.W.3 (sic.2) for the purpose of filing a sale deed -Ex.A-5. P.W.3 is a retired Deputy Executive Engineer, who estimated the cost of well etc. Under Ex.A-5, an extent of 450 sq. yards in Sy.No.l48-B was sold, just before acquisition i.e., on 26-7-1978 at Rs.10/- per sq. yard. The learned Subordinate Judge held that it is not a comparable sale as it is closer to Hanmakonda town and abutting the main-road. No one connected with the document was examined and therefore it has no evidentiary value in view of what has been laid down in a series of recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court. Having thus rightly discarded Ex.A-5, the learned Subordinate Judge observed that even according to the sale particulars of Bheemaram village mentioned in the Award, in March, 1978, an extent of more than half-an-acre was sold for Rs.8,300/- per acre and in view of the fertility and irrigation facilities the acquired land has, the Court thought it fit to fix the market value at a higher rate of Rs.10,000/- per acre. This approach based on one of the sales statistics in the Award, in our view, is not correct. The Land Acquisition Collector having referred to the sale deed dt.21-3-1978 by which 24 guntas (about half-an-acre) of land was sold for Rs.4,980/- (Rs.8,300/- per acre), was not prepared to accept this sale as a genuine one. Right or wrong, he gave certain reasons for discarding the aforementioned sale. In substance,the LAO commented that having come to know that the land was coming under the Kakatiya Canal, the vendor who was still having possession of the land nominally sold 24 guntas in favour of his brother. In the absence of the relative sale deed being brought on record and the examination of the vendor or vendee of the document, the lower Court was not justified in relying on the sale transaction discarded by the LAO. It is pertinent to notice that as per the Award, there is another sale which took place on the very same day i.e., on 21-3-1978 in the very same survey number which had been acquired, by which 31 guntas of land was sold at the rate of Rs.9,000/-per acre. That sale was effected by the claimant himself in favour of his father purportedly. The LAO also discarded that sale transaction on the ground that it was brought into existence to boost up the value of the land. Neither P.W.1 nor P.W.3 relied on this sale evidently because they were themselves not convinced about the veracity of their claim.