The admission of the Commissioner of Endowments is not binding as it was made without reference to any document. The Basic Value Register values cannot be taken as guiding figures for market rate. Sale deeds cannot be relied upon without examining the parties involved. The Deputy Tahsildar's admission is not binding as it was made without reference to any document.

G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the Government against the order of the learned subordinate Judge, Rajam in O. P. No. 15 of 1987 enhancing the compensation from Rs. 15,000/- per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs. 30/- per square yard or Rs. 1,45,200/- per acre.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the appeal, in brief, are as follows:- anextent of Ac. 21-81 centsof land belonging to Sri Jagannadha Swamy Vari temple situated at Palakonda, Sirkakulam District was sought to be acquired by means of a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the Act") dated 18-2-1981 for the purpose of providing house-sites to the weaker sections of the Society at Palakonda. The Commissioner of Endowments, who is the Head of the Department of Endowments and who has control over the temple in question, by his letter D. Dis. M2/20537/80 dated 28-4-1980agreed to the said acquisition of the temple land subject, however, to the condition of paying compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre. Due to some litigation connected with the said land, the acquisition could not be effected upto the year 1986. In the year 1986, certain portion of the land which is sought to be acquired was deleted from acquisition and set apart for some public purpose and an errata was published to that effect. The Land Acquisition Officer after due enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and basing upon a series of sale transaction during that particular period in that area, arrived at a conclusion that an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per acre would be the reasonable amount of compensation for the temple land, though the Commissioner of Endowments has categorically agreed for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation. He accordingly awarded compensation at Rs. 15,000/- per-acre.

( 3 ) INSPITE of the written admission of the Commissioner of Endowments that their department would be satisfied if a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per acre is granted towards compensation, curiously however, the matter was referred to the Civil court under Section 18 of the Act. The Executive Officer of the Sri jagannadhaswami Van Temple was examined as R. W. 1 on behalf of the claimant and Exs. B-1 to B-3 were marked. Sri A. V. Ramana Murthy, the Deputy tahsildar was examined as D. W. 1 onbehalf of the Land Acquisition Officer and exs. A-1 to A-10 were marked.

( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge, Rajam without considering the sale deeds that have been filed in the case, by taking into account the admission made by d. W. I, the Deputy Tahsildar, that in the year 1981, a square yard of house site fetched a sum of Rs. 50/- in that area, came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 30/ per square yard would be the reasonable amount of compensation that can be awareded. Thus, an amount of Rs. 1,45,200/- per acre was awarded towards compensation as against Rs. 15,000/- per acre granted by the Land Acquisition officer.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the said decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajam, the Government have preferred the above appeal.

( 6 ) THE main contention putforth by the learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant herein, is that since the Commissioner of Endowments, on behalf of His Department, has agreed for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per acre towards compensation, which fact was also spoken to by R. W. 1, who was examined on behalf of the claimant, the lower court was not justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs. 15,000/- per are to Rs. 1,45,200/- per acre, (Rs. 30/- per square yard ). It is to be borne in mind that the notification was made in the year 1981. At that time, the party receiving compensation has made an admission with regard to the compensation and it is binding on it. On the question whether the amendment to Section 25 of the Act is prospective or retrospective) there is some debate. But in this case, that question need not be answered, as on a previous occasion, in L. P. A. No. 184 of 1991 dated 23-3-1992

Click Here to Read the rest of this document