P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant is the Land Acquisition Officer who questions the order of the Civil Court made on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in O. P. No. 193 of 1984 dated 9-10-1987, whereunder the Civil Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 18,000. 00to Rs. 65,000. 00 per acre.

( 2 ) AN extent of Ac. 2-14 cents in Survey Nos. 235/2 and 238 situated within the Municipal limits of Tenali Town belonging to the respondent was acquired for purpose of burial ground in pursuance of a notification published under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 19-10-1978. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 27-11-1983 fixed the compensation at Rs. 18,000. 00 per acre. Dissatisfied with the same, the respondent sought for reference before the Civil Court, which on consideration of the evidence on record, enhanced the same to Rs. 65,000. 00per acre.

( 3 ) THE claimant did not examine anybody, except herself as PW1. Of course, she filed Ex. A1 registration extract of sale deed dated 8-3-1977 to show that an extent of 484 Sq. yards in Survey No. 246/1 was sold for a sum of Rs. 7,260. 00, thereby the respondent attempted to establish her claim that the land in the vicinity was being sold at the rate of Rs. 72,000. 00 per acre. However neither the vendor nor the vendee under Ex. A1 was examined to prove the contents of the sale deed, Ex. A1. The appellant examined two witnesses viz. , Revenue Inspector and Junior Assistant working in Sub-Collector s Office as RWs. 1 and 2 respectively. RW2 produced Exs. B6 and B7 extracts of registered sale deeds dated 6-10-1976, one in respect of a sale transaction of 40 cents in Survey No. 426/ic for a sum of Rs. 6,000. 00 to show that the market value of the land in the vicinity is around Rs. 15,000. 00 and another of an extent of 53 cents sold for a sum of Rs. 7,950. 00, in order to show that the same are comparable sales and the prevailing market value is not more than Rs. 15,000. 00 per acre.

( 4 ) THE learned Government Pleader contends that the learned Subordinate Judge has erroneously placed reliance on Ex. A1, registration extract of the sale deed, even though none of the persons connected with the said sale was deed examined to prove the contents of the said sale deed, and therefore, Ex. A1 should be eschewed from consideration. If so eschewed, there is nothing on record to show that the compensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is low or unreasonable.

( 5 ) SRI P. Suresh, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is based on the evidence on record, and therefore, the same cannot be assailed, and in any event, as Ex. A1 was already filed, an opportunity should be given to the respondent to enable him to examine the persons connected with Ex. A1 by remanding the matter.

( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader relying on K. Krishna Reddy v. Spl Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition, Unit II, AIR 1988 SC 2123 submits that the appellate power of remand cannot be exercised lightly. It is relevant to extract the observations of the Apex Court: "the appellate power of remand, at any rate ought not to be exercised lightly. It shall not be resorted to unless the award is wholly unintelligible. It shall not be exercised unless there is total lack of evidence. If remand is imperative, and if the claim for enhanced compensation is tenable, it would be proper for the appellate Court to do modest best to mitigate hardships. "in Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1991 SC 2027 the Apex Court has again reiterated that the request of the appellant therein for remand to adduce additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 C. P. C. cannot be countenanced, as the appellant failed to adduce evidence though available when the matter was pending before the Civil Court.

( 7 ) IT is now well-settled that the appellate Court has inherent powers to remand a case for fresh disposal. I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document