Order
1. Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 7-6-2000 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Appeals Nos. 2901, 3078 of 1999 and 7 of 2000, the Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer), Nalgonda, Andhra Pradesh has filed these appeals.
3. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court fixed the compensation of the land under acquisition @ Rs 2,25,000 per acre by relying upon Ext. A-10, which relates to the fixation of rate of compensation for Survey No. 367 for which notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for acquiring the land was issued on 29-8-1980.
4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order, on the face of it, is illegal and erroneous because the Court ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the relevant date for fixing the market price in the present case was 7-7-1977 i.e the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for acquiring the land for the purpose of constructing a bus-stand and a bus depot, in Village Bechirag Madharam, Suryapet taluk, District Nalgonda. For this purpose, learned counsel for the appellant referred to the sale deeds produced by the claimants for fixing market price of the land under acquisition and submitted that the market price fixed by the High Court is totally erroneous and an unjustified one.
5. The claimants have produced on record the following sale deeds:
1. Ext. A-7, sale deed dated 15-2-1974 by which 20 gunthas of land out of Survey No. 263 was sold @ Rs 1000 per guntha.
2. Ext. A-4, sale deed dated 11-12-1975 by which 5 gunthas and 6 sq yards of land out of Survey No. 263 was sold @ Rs 3500 per guntha. Learned counsel for the respondents after referring to the copy of the sale deed and the evidence, submitted that there is an apparent mistake in the judgment of the High Court in mentioning rate per guntha at Rs 2500 instead of Rs 3500. Relying upon the said submission, we have accepted the said figure of Rs 3500.
3. Ext. A-5, copy of the sale deed dated 13-9-1977 by which 6 gunthas of transfer of land out of Survey No. 263 was sold for a consideration of Rs 20,000.
4. Ext. A-6, which is a sale deed dated 30-12-1978 by which 2 gunthas of land out of Survey No. 262 was sold @ Rs 4500 per guntha.
6. In our view, had the High Court applied its mind and considered the sale deeds relied upon by the claimants, it would not have fixed the compensation @ Rs 2,25,000 per acre, solely on the basis of Ext. A-10 for which notification under Section 4 was issued on 29-8-1980. It appears that the High Court has not given any importance to the fact that notification under Section 4 in the present case was issued on 7-7-1977 i.e three years before the date of notification which was issued in subsequent land acquisition proceedings. This would also mean that after the project of acquiring the land for the purpose of constructing a bus-stand and a bus depot, there was increase in the price of the land in the village. In our view, in this set of circumstances, there was no reason in not relying upon the sale deeds of some portions of the land under acquisition on various dates. Under the acquisition in question, some portions of land of Surveys Nos. 263, 264 and 265 are acquired, therefore, sale deed pertaining to portion of land of Survey No. 263 would be the most relevant piece of evidence for fixing the market price of the land. In our view, relevant sale deed dated 11-12-1975 (Ext. 4) would reflect the market price of the acquired land.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the land which was transferred by Ext. A-4 was only 5 gunthas of land whereas the land which is acquired is 14 acres 32 gunthas. As against this, the learned counsel for the claimants pointed out that in the present case, it would be wholly erroneous to state that 14 acres 32 gunthas of land of one or two individuals was acquired. He submitted that as per the chart which has been produced on record, land belonging to 26 persons is acquired and out of them most of the claimants were owners of less than 20 gunthas of land, therefore, there is no question of applying the principle of reducing the price on the basis of sale instance for a small piece of land.
8. It is true that normally while fixing the market price of the land under acquisition when the sale instances are for a small piece of land then appropriate reduction is required to be made while fixing the market price of land under acquisition. However, in the present case, the land which is acquired is out of the same survey number. Various sale deeds produced on record reflect the increase in price of the portions of land of the same survey number. Other evidence on record indicates that in the village there is an increase in market price of land during the relevant years. Therefore, considering the increasing trend of the market price and the fact that small pieces of land owned by different persons are acquired, this would not be a fit case for reducing the amount on the ground that the relevant sale deed is for a small piece of land.
9. In this view of the matter, we fix the market price of the land under acquisition on the basis of Ext. A-4 at the rate of Rs 3500 per guntha which comes to Rs 1,40,000 per acre. We modify the judgment and order passed by the High Court accordingly. Rest of the judgment and order of the High Court is confirmed. The appeals are allowed accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.