Point of Law: Assessment is to ensure that land owner gets fair compensation and his claim is not fanciful or imaginary. In assessing a sale transaction, what is paramount to assess is, whether it was the price offered by a willing purchaser to pay to the willing seller for a property, having due regard to its existing conditions, with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities.

JUDGMENT:

P. Naveen Rao, J.

Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals and Sri T.L. Krishna Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

2. Acs.11.20 guntas of land in Survey No.257/1 of Waridyal village of Kollapur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, was acquired for the purpose of relocating temples submerged in Srisailam Irrigation Project. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value as Rs.5,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of the compensation. The reference was registered as L.A.O.P.No.308 of 1996 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool. By order dated 30.09.2005, learned Senior Civil Judge enhanced the market value to Rs.15,000/- per acre, awarded solatium at 30% on the enhanced amount, interest @ 4% per annum from the date of taking possession of land for a period of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount and solatium till the enhanced compensation amount is paid or deposited into the Court. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is preferred.

3. According to learned Government Pleader, on due assessment of the potentiality, prevailing market rate and the transactions that were made in and around the land in issue, the Land Acquisition

Officer has correctly arrived at the market value as Rs.5,000/-per acre and therefore, there is no justification for the reference Court to enhance the market value. He further submits that on a solitary transaction showing higher market value, the reference Court ought not to have held that the value of the land is more than what was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer having discarded several other transactions relied upon by the claimants. The transaction on which reliance was placed was covering a small piece of land and cannot correctly reflect the actual land value in the surrounding area.

4. The reference Court observed that the transactions covered by Exs.A25 to A29 took place in the year 1977, where the value of the land transacted ranged between Rs.11,200/- and 30,000/- per acre. In view of the location, status of land as BAGANA, potentiality compared to land covered by those transactions, the reference Court opined that in the year 1979, the market value of the subject land ought to be more. The reference Court observed that the land covered by Ex.A25 was found to be proximate to the land in issue compared to the transactions covered by Exs.A26 to A29. The reference Court assessed the evidence of P.W.8. The reference Court opined that the land covered by the transaction in Ex.A25 is nearer, has similar potentiality with that of the land under acquisition and the said transaction was true and valid transaction. The reference court has taken the transaction value covered by Ex.A25 as basis to arrive at just compensation. In his deposition, the Land Acquisition Officer also accepted the status of land as BAGANA.

5. In Ex.A25, the value determined was Rs.11,200/- per acre. This transaction took place on 27.06.1977. It was one year eight months prior to the notification under which the land in issue was acquired. Therefore, the reference Court added 15% to the then value and arrived at the market value, rounded off to Rs.15,000/- per acre and accordingly the compensation was determined.

6. The contention of learned Government Pleader that one solitary transaction, that too covering small extent of land cannot reflect true market value of the land, is stated to be rejected in the facts of this case. In land acquisition proceedings, paramount consideration is to determine just compensation to a land owner whose land was compulsorily acquired. In determining just compensation, it is permissible to do guess work. The Court is required to look into various aspects to arrive at just compensation. One of them is contemporaneous transactions in near by land. As long as