G. BIKSHAPATHY, J.

( 1 ) THESE appeals have a long tail with tiny head.

( 2 ) FIXATION of market value continue to be the never ending issue in Land acquisition proceedings over a period of half a century. Right from Justice Romer (Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, AIR 1939 PC 98), to Justice S. V. Patil (Kasturi v. State of haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354, Officer, the judge made law has been a guiding factor rather than strict interpretation of statutory provisions. Yet, the edifice market value is based on sole principal pillar - price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. These two obscure personalities per force make the courts to indulge in a guesswork and create any amount of judicial exercise to feel their pulse to arrive a just and reasonable compensation.

( 3 ) TURNING to the genealogy of these appeals, an extent of Ac. 37-23 gts. in s. Nos. 461, 462 and 463 and another extent of Ac. 1-39 gts. in S. No. 431 of Patancheruvu village of Medak Mandal were acquired for industrial Development area. Section 4 (1) notifications were issued on 11-7-1974 and 2-9-1976 and awards were passed by the Land Acquisitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document