( 1 ) THIS reference to the Full Bench has been made for a decision on the following question :"whether the trial Court, on a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after rejecting the evidence tendered by the claimants, is precluded from computing compensation in respect of the acquired land on the basis of the sale-transactions considered and rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer, but not filed into Court and marked as exhibits and admitted into evidence. "the referring order says that a Division Bench of this Court in Spl. Deputy Collector v. P. Narsinga Rao, (1985) 2 Andh LT 492, held, following the Supreme Court decision in Collector, Raigarh v. Harisingh Thakur, AIR 1979 SC 472, that unless the documents pertaining to the sale transactions are admitted in evidence, and the vendor or vendee is examined, the same cannot be relied upon. The learned single Judge was of the view that the Supreme Court did not say anything of that nature and that if among the sale transactions considered by the Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter called the A. L. O.) the one showing the highest value could not constitute evidence for computing the compensation because the document was not marked as an exhibit for proof of its contents, by the same parity of reasoning, the sale transactions relied upon by the L. A. O. and disclosing a lower value but not brought on record as part of the evidence should not also be the basis for fixing the compensation.

( 2 ) ON the facts of the case, the position is that the L. A. O. awarded Rs. 27,500/- per acre as against the claim of Rs. 75,000/- per acre made by the claimant. The extent acquired was ac. 1-64 cents in R. S. No. 546/ 14, Gollapudi village, Vijayawada Taluk. The claimant marked two sale deeds Exs. A-1, A-2 dated 23-5-1979 and 14-5-1979 respectively. The Referring Officer marked Ex. B-1 sketch, Ex. B-2 reference order of the Special Tahsildar (L. A. O.) and Ex. B-3 dated 9-10-1980, being the claimant s application to the L. A. O. The learned Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, in his judgment dated 1-2-1982, which is now appealed against in this appeal, thought that Exs. A-1 and A-2 could not be relied upon for the claimant, even though the rate there was Rs. 1. 50 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh per acre, inasmuch as those lands were abutting the main highway between Hyderabad and Vijayawada while the acquired land was not so situated. Further, the lands covered by Exs. A-1, A-2 were four furlongs and two and a half furlongs from the acquired land. The learned Subordinate Judge then relied upon the sales at Serial Nos. 3 and 4 referred to in the Award and noticed that the former relates to sale of ac. 0. 07 cents in R. S. No. 546/2-B at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per acre and is also at a distance of 20 yards from the acquired land, and these sales were effected on 2-4-1978. The S. 4 (1) notification here is dated 21-6-1978 and possession was taken on 1-10-1977. The learned Subordinate Judge therefore fixed compensation at Rs. 60,000/- per acre on the basis of the two sale transactions relied upon in the Award, even though the corresponding sale deeds were not marked as exhibits in the Court and no other witnesses were examined in regard to these sale-transactions. The learned single Judge thought that the learned Subordinate Judge could rely upon the said transactions and that the Division Bench case in Spl. Deputy Collector v. P. Narsinga Rao, (1985 (2) Andh LT 492) required reconsideration inasmuch as in the opinion of the learned Judge, the Division Bench did not properly appreciate the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector, Raigarh v. Harisingh Thakur.

( 3 ) AT the outset, we wish to point out that generally, there are two types of cases in which such questions arise. The first type is the one where no comparable sale-deed is produced or marked in the Civil Court after the reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Court relies upon the reference to su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document