Comparable sale exemplars of similar land in the same locality provide the most reliable basis for determining market value under the Land Acquisition Act, and separate compensation for irrigation wells is permissible if the valuation does not employ the income capitalization method.

JUDGMENT: (Per Honourable Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy)

1. This Land Acquisition Appeal, filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), is directed against the order and decree dated 28.06.2004 passed in O.P. No. 16 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet (hereinafter referred to as the “Reference Court”).

2. By the impugned order, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “LAO”) from Rs.20,000/- per acre to Rs.1,40,000/- in respect of acquired land and from Rs.74,000/- to Rs.99,000/- for each irrigation well. Aggrieved thereby, the present Appeal is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet.

I. BRIEF FACTS:

3. The Land to an extent of Ac.0.26 guntas, Ac.3.36 guntas, Ac. 0.20 guntas in Sy. No. 281 of Vittalapur Village of China Kodur Mandal of Siddipet District were acquired for the purpose of construction of an irrigation tank at Vittalapur village.

II. NOTIFICATION AND AWARD:

4. A notification under section 4(1) of the Act, was published on 04.12.2000, and pursuant thereto, notices under sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act were issued. Thereafter, along with an award enquiry was conducted by LAO in accordance with law.

5. Subsequently, the LAO passed an award dated 27.12.2001, fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 20,000/- per acre and Rs. 74,000/-for each irrigation well. Not being satisfied with the said compensation, the claimants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be numbered as O.P. No. 16 of 2002 before the Reference Court.

III. POINTS BEFORE THE REFERENCE COURT:

6. The Reference Court, upon the pleadings, framed the following points for determination:

1. Whether the market value estimated to the Agricultural wells belonging to claimantNo.1 and 2 is liable to be enhanced?

2. Whether the market value fixed for the acquired land belonging to Claimants No.l to 3 can be enhanced?

IV. EVIDENCE BEFORE THE REFERENCE COURT:

7. To substantiate their claim for higher compensation, the appellants examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exhibit A1 to A6.

8. On behalf of the respondent-State, RW1 was examined and Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked.

V. FINDINGS OF THE REFERENCE COURT:

9. The learned Reference Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, particularly the sale deeds marked as Exs.A-3 and A-4, found them to be genuine and bona fide transactions pertaining to lands situated in close proximity to the acquired lands. Further, both the transactions under Exs.A-3 and A-4 were found to be executed within three years preceding the publication of the Section 4(1) Notification, and thus fall within the permissible time frame for consideration while determining the market value of the acquired lands. Relying upon those sale deeds, the Reference Court observed that both the above sale deeds reflected the prevailing market trend in the locality, and as such, they provided the most reliable basis for fixing the compensation.

10. The learned Reference Court took note of the fact that in Ex. A-3, dated 17.05.1999, the land in Sy.No.370/AA