JUDGMENT
N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-2-1998 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala in L.A.O.P. No. 199 of 1995.
2. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as follows:
The Government, with a view to distribute sites to weaker sections of the society, thought of acquiring some land covered by S. Nos. 873/1 and 874 at Julakallu village of Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur District. Accordingly, draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in Guntur District Gazette on 11-11-1977 for acquiring Ac.6-64 cents out of Ac.18-10 cents in S. No. 873/1 and Ac.5-86 cents out of Ac.50-33 cents in S. No. 874. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the land acquired was 5 acres 26 cents in S. No. 873/1. Notices under Sections 10-1, 9(3) and 10 were issued, but the enquiry of the award could not be completed, as the pattadars were absent from the village. The beneficiaries desired to get the pattas on 16-8-1982 as the Panchayat Samithi proposed permanent hutting programme in the village. The Collector accorded permission to take possession of the land and accordingly the land was taken possession in advance on 21-1-1983 and pattas were distributed to 174 beneficiaries of the village on 24-1-1983. While so, one of the land owners, namely, Sri M.P. Narsi Reddy (appellant in this appeal) filed W.P. 7882 of 1985 and obtained stay orders in WPMP No. 10809 of 1985, dated 25-7-1985. The High Court quashed the draft declaration and draft notification and allowed the said writ petition, but however, did not preclude the authorities from publishing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.
3. Again, draft notification was submitted to the District Collector, Guntur on 2-9-1986, but the same was returned by the District Collector for want of funds. Again, draft notification proposals were submitted to the District Collector on 16-12-1988 and they were approved on 22-4-1989 and the notification was published on 5-10-1989.
4. The award enquiry was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the award enquiry it is stated that Sri M.P. Narsi Reddy, one of the land owners and the claimant herein appeared before Mandal Revenue Officer, Piduguralla for award enquiry and informed that the market value of the land was Rs. 100/- per Sq. yard as per the valuation certificate issued by the Sub- Registrar Office, Piduguralla on 5-12-1988 and that he had also quoted another sale deed of 27 cents covered under D. No. 614, executed in the year 1985, and according to that the market value of the land is Rs. 62/- per Sq. yard in the year 1985.
5. The Enquiry Officer took into consideration during the enquiry proceedings the values in the Basic Value Register with regard to different survey numbers and fixed compensation at Rs. 5,000/-per acre.
6. Aggrieved by the said award of compensation, the claimant sought reference of the matter under Section18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the jurisdictional civil Court. Before the civil Court, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and he got examined P.Ws.2 to 4. He has also got marked Ex.A-1 to A-6 on his behalf. Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3 are the copies of the orders passed by the High Court, Ex.A-4 is the certificate of market value issued by Sub-Registrar, Ex.A-5 is the village plan of Julakallu and Ex.A-6 is the copy of registered sale deed.
7. After taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the claimant, both oral and documentary, and the material available on record, the learned Judge closed the reference concluding that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and reasonable. Aggrieved by the said Judgment passed by the learned Judge, the claimant has come in appeal to this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs. 5,000/- per acre as awarded by the Land Acquisition officer and confirmed by the learned Senior Civil Judge to Rs. 75/- per Sq. yard.
8. Sri Subrahmanyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the claimant, submitted that the judgment passed by the Court below is incorrect; the lower Court has committed mistake in not taking into consideration the potentiality of the land; under Ex.A-6 the area measuring two acres, which was similarly situated, was sold at Rs. 7,500/- per acre; the land was acquired for housing purposes and it had the potentiality of house-sites and therefore the determination of compensation should have been on yardage basis and not on acreage basis. It is further contended that the Court below erred in not noticing that in similar circumstances this Court granted more compensation than what the Court below granted; even the evidence of the witnesses speak that the claimant is entitled for compensation not less than Rs. 62/- to Rs. 100/- per Sq. yard. It is also contended that even if for any reason the Court found that small extent of land should not be the basis for determining the market value of large extent of land, in view of the settled law, giving deduction towards developmental activities, the compensation should have been awarded on yardage basis. Thus arguing, the learned Counsel sought for enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 75/- per Sq. yard.
9. As an answer to these contentions, Sri Veera Swamy, learned Government Pelader, supporting the judgment and decree passed by the Court below, contended that morely because nobody was examined on behalf of the State it does not mean that they have no case to make out. When a person comes to the Court and seeks for enhancement of compensation, it is for him to prove on what grounds he is entitled for enhancement of compensation and that the claimant has utterly failed to show any reason for enhancing the compensation. To get more compensation there should be acceptable evidence, but the evidence adduced by the claimant, whether oral or documentary, is not clinching. Even P.W.1, the claimant himself, stated that as on the date of acquisition the land was an agricultural land. Thus contending, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
10. Since the quantum of compensation claimed is at variance and the duty of the Court is to see whether just and adequate compensation is ordered and if not ordered to order the same, we have once again gone through the entire evidence and the order passed by the Court below by which it had confirmed the compensation at Rs. 5,000/- per acre. P.W.1, the claimant, had stated that the land is situated at an important place and surrounded by Co-operative Milk Collection Centre, whereas P.W.3 stated that the market value of the land at the relevant time was Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per acre. But, nothing has been produced to show that the land in question was wet land and was having good potentiality. On the other hand, it is admitted that the land was a dry land. Even the evidence of P.W.2, who is no other than the Sub-Registrar, did not in any way advance the case of the claimant. The learned Judge observed that a careful perusal of the award discloses that the Land Acquisition Officer had also taken into consideration apart from the Basic Value Register nine sale deeds and that he personally inspected the lands in dispute and verified the sale transaction. With regard to the land acquired in S. No. 614, which was relied upon by the claimant for enhancement of compensation, it can be seen that the land acquired was a very small extent and the market value of small extent of land cannot be a basis for determining the large extent of land. Ordering of compensation depends upon various aspects, such as, potentiality, purpose for which the land was acquired, location of the land etc. Though the claimant relied on Ex.A-6, which is the registered sale deed of a small extent of land, the vendor and vendee of Ex.A-6 were not examined. When it is settled principle that the market value of small extent should not be the basis for determining the market value of large extent, then Ex.A-6 has to be eschewed from consideration. Then, what remains is the fact that the land acquired was an agricultural land. As stated by P.W.3 himself, the value of the land was ranging from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per acre. Taking into consideration the potentiality of the land, its location and the purpose for which it was acquired, even if we lean on little higher side, the market value of the land in question would not have been more than Rs. 35,000/-.
11. Hence, this appeal is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and confirmed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is, enhanced to Rs. 35,000/- per acre. The claimant is entitled to all other benefits which the law permits. Regarding additional benefits, the claimant is entitled for additional market value from 11-11-1977, the date of actual taking over of possession, and not from 22-1-1983.