ORDER
N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J
1. All
these appeals are filed challenging the common order passed in OP Nos.47, 67, 68, 85 and 86 of 1989, dated 23-7-1999 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati.
2. The claimants are the appellants herein. The land approximately in an extent of Ac.61.46 cents in Sy. Nos.6, 13, 17 and 31 of Yerramreddipalem village of Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District was acquired by the Government by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the “Act”), dated 30-12-1976 for the purpose of extension of industrial
development area called A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC). The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 14-4-1977. Since the extent of the land acquired is a plain sheet of land without any marks of boundaries by ridges etc., survey of the fields was taken up by the Government within the boundaries proposed for acquisition and the correct extent as per the survey came to Ac.57-41 cents. Accordingly, (he Government issued an errata to 4(1) notification and published the same on 19-8-1981 mentioning therein the extent of land to be acquired as Ac.57-41 cents in Sy. Nos.6, 13, 17 and 31 as against Ac.61-46 cents. Also an errata to the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on the same day. The errata notification was published as there are mistakes with regard to names and extents and that an extent of Ac.2-13 cents in Sy. Nos.6, 13 and 17 was not found in the original 4(1) notification. The appellants herein are only concerned to an extent of Ac.25-10 cents in Sy. No.31 with its sub/ divisions (New Sy. No.516). The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting necessary enquiry and after taking into consideration the location and the nature of the land passed award in Award No.3 of 1983, dated 1-6-1983 fixing the market value of the land at Rs.25,929/- per acre, besides solatium at 15% and after giving 1/3rd deduction towards developmental charges. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded the claimants sought reference to a Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation.
3. Before the reference Court the claimants urged for fixation of the market value of the lands acquired on the basis of the prevailing market value as on the date of 19-8-1981, the date on which the errata notification was published. On the basis of the claim made by the claimants the reference Court raised the following points for consideration:
(1) Whether the date of acquisition in this case will be considered as on 30-12-1976 or 19-8-19981?
(2) What would be the market value of the land covered by Survey No.516 corresponding to old Sy. No.31 of Erramareddipalem village as on the date of Section 4(1) notification?
4. Before the Court below both the parties led their evidence . On behalf of the State one Mr. Sankaranarayana Murthy, the Mandal Revenue Officer, was examined as PW1 and marked two documents, Exs.A1 and A2. Ex.A1 is the award in Award No.3 of 1983, dated 1-6-1983 and Ex.A2 is the letter dated 13-3-1981 from the RDO Chandragiri at Tirupathi, addressed to the District Collector, Chittoor sending PV statement for approval. On behalf of the claimants four persons were examined viz., S. Ramanujulu P. Narayana Reddy, R. Dwarakanath Reddy and Y. Dayananda Gupta respectively as RWs.1 to 4. On behalf of the claimants the documents Exs.B1 to B31 and Ex.X1 were marked.
5. Ex.B1, dated 14-7-1965 is a registration copy of General power of Attorney executed by B. Amaravathi in favour of Sirigiri Ramanujulu; Ex.B2, dated 29-10-1987 is the certified copy of decree in OP No.30 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupati; Ex.B3, dated 9-2-1988 is the registered Power of Attorney executed by M. Krishnamachari, M. Doraswamy, M. Varadahcari and Smt. S.A. Vasantha in favour of Sri Sirigiri Ramanujulu; Ex.B4, dated 19-7-1989 is the declaration given by M. Krishnamachari, M. Doraswamy, M. Varadachari and Smt. S. Vasantha empowering their GPA Sri Sirigiri Ramanujulu to conduct and receive amounts on OP No.68 of 1989; Ex.B5, dated 30-12-1976 is the certified copy of Section 4(1) notification published in the A.P. State Gazette; Ex.B6, dated 14-4-1977 is the certified copy of Section 6 notification
published at page No. 17 of A.P. Gazette dated 14-4-1977; Ex.B7, dated 19-8-1981 is the certified copy of errata to Draft Notification published at page No.16 of the A.P. Gazette Part-I, Extraordinary; Ex.B9, dated 20-4-1981 is the notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act; vide Roc.K/ 11941/76 is used by Ihe Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chandragiri at Tirupati; Ex.B10, dated 14-5-1981 is the certified copy of the certificate of lands taken possession from the revenue authorities and that it is for the industrial estate by the APIIC Ltd., showing the date of taking possession; Ex.B11, dated 30-7-1990 is the combined Topo sketch showing the situation of the land acquired in relation to important institutions and development in the area of Industrial Estate, Tirupati issued by one S. Ramaswamy, Town Surveyor (Retired), Tirupati; Ex.812, dated 1-8-1963 is the certified copy of the notification by Government in G.O. Ms. No.173, Industries, dated 4-7-1963, published in A.P. Gazette dated 1-8-1963; Ex.B13, dated 19-4-1990 is the certified copy of Common Order in OP Nos.2 of 1982 and 116 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupati; Ex.B14, dated 12-7-1974 is the true copy of Council Resolution No. 168 showing the master plan proposals by Tirupati Municipality; Ex.B15, dated 17-3-1976 is the true copy of G.O. Ms. No.144, MA, Health, Housing and Municipal Administration Department, issued by the Government of A.P. sanctioning the grant-in-aid to Tirupati Municipality for implementation of Master Plan; Ex.B16, dated 23-3-1978 is the true copy of Council Resolution No.517 passed by the Commissioner and Special Officer, Tirupati Municipality, to include Daminedu in Master Plan; Ex.B17, dated 13-10-1981 is the true copy of G.O. Ms. No. 1123, MA, Housing, Municipal Administration and Urban Development issued by the Government of A.P. Sanctioning General Town Planning Scheme; Ex.B18 is the certified copy of
Master Plan of Tirupati of the year 1981; Ex.B19, dated 31-7-1990 is the extract of Basic Value Register issued by the Sub-Registrar, Tirupati for subject lands; Ex.B20, dated 2-7-1987 is the registration copy of registered sale deed in favour of D. Ramachandra executed by D. Krishnam Raju; Ex.B21, dated 23-7-1988 is the certified true copy of Memo No.1513/K2/ 86-4 of Revenue (K) Department; Exs.B22 to B25, dated 30-7-1990 are the Topo sketch in OP Nos.67, 68, 85 and 86 of 1989 respectively; Ex.B26, dated 5-1-1998 is the Topo sketch of Thookivakkam and Yerramreddypalem villages and the letter of MRO Renigunta; Exs.B27 and B28, dated 19-4-1995 are the certified copies of the order and decree in LA OP No. 110 of 1990 on the file of the principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupati; Ex.B29, dated 16-1-1998 is the correlation certificate vide C No.61 of 1998 issued by the MRO, Renigunta, certifying that S. No.31 and its sub-divisions of Yerramareddipalem village is correlated to new Sy. No.516; Ex.B30, dated 21-10-1980 is the registration copy of the registered sale deed in favour of P. Narayana Reddy executed by A. Nagaraja Reddy and Ex.B31, dated 2-5-1981 is the registration copy of registered sale deed in favour of Smt. Muneamma executed by R Dwarakanadha Reddy and another. Ex.X1, dated 2-9-1998 marked by the claimants is the true copy of judgment in AS No.107 of 1992 on the file of the High Court.
6. The reference Court basing on the evidence available found that the date of earlier notification dated 30-12-1976 shall be taken as the date of acquisition of the lands for the purpose of determining the market value, but not the errata notification dated 19-8-1981. Regarding point No.2 the reference Court placed reliance on Exs.B30 and B31 respectively dated 21-10-1980 and 2-5-1981, copy of registered sale deeds executed in favour of P. Narayana Reddy (RW2) and Smt. Munemma. RW2 was the
vendee under the original of Ex.B30 and RW3 is the vendor under the original of Ex.B31. Under Ex.B30 sale transaction an extent of Ac.89 square yards in Sy. No.839 of Thukivakkam village was sold on 21-10-1980 for Rs.2,800/-, which comes to Rs.3l/-per square yard and Rs.1,48,000/- per acre. Under Ex.B31 sale transaction, an extent of 300 square yards in Sy. No.841 of Thukivakkam village was sold on 2-5-1981 for Rs.10,500/-, which comes to Rs.1,68,000/-per acre and Rs.35/- per square yard. The LAO has fixed the market value of the lands acquired on the basis of the lands sold in the year 1976 in the vicinity of Yerramreddipalem village. According to him the documents Exs.B30 and B31 are not helpful to the claimants as they relate to the subsequent purchases and further they relate to the small extents of lands and that the small bits of land shall not be the basis to determine the market value of the large extents. The reference Court accepted the version that the lands under acquisition and the lands covered by Exs.B30 and B31 are situate in the same locality. The Reference Court has not considered its previous judgment in OP No.110 of 1990, which was produced and marked as Ex.B27. The Reference Court though marked and considered Ex.B13, a certified copy of the judgment whereunder the market value was fixed by it for the land acquired in the same locality in the year 1974 at Rs.50/- per square yard in OP No. 116 of 1989 and the same was confirmed by the High Court in AS No.107 of 1992, which is in Ex.X1. According to the trial Court the land converted into house plots will fetch more market value than the land that was not covnerted into house plots. The Court below found that the claimants are not entitled to the compensation they claimed, but they entitled to compensation for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.31,100/- per acre in addition to the other benefits under the Amendment Act. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Reference
Court the claimants filed the present appeals.
7. Sri Rajendra Bussa, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the judgment and decree passed by the Court below is arbitrary and illegal. According to him when the same Court has fixed the market value in OP No.116 of 1989 for the nearby and similarly situated lands acquired in the year 1974 at the rate of Rs.2,40,000/- i.e., Rs.50/- per sq. yard the same amount should have been awarded to the case of the appellants. He submits that since this Court in AS No.107 of 1992 confirmed the judgment and decree in OP No.116 of 1989 passed by the same Reference Court, the Reference Court should have applied the same principle in the case of the claimants in the present appeals. The Court, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, should have computed the compensation of the claimants at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq. yard plus 10% escalation from the year 1974 to 1981.
8. Ex.B27 is the award in LA OP No.110 of 1990, dated 31-7-1990 passed by the same Reference Court for similarly situated lands in Sy. Nos.867/A2 and 868/ A2 of Tukivakkam village of Renigunta Mandal, which have been acquired for the purpose of construction of Railway Carriage Repair workshop and covered by notification dated 5-9-1987 wherein the Reference Court enhanced compensation from Rs.6 lakhs per acre as awarded by the LAO to Rs.10 lakhs per acre. When the lands of the claimants are abutting the lands covered by LA OP No.110 of 1990 the same Reference Court should have awarded compensation in the present case at the rate of Rs.10 lakhs per acre.
9. Sri Rajendra Bussa, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the lands under acquisition are well developed and very close to High way and
surrounded by many industries like Krishna Industries, State Bank of India branch, Eenadu Telugu daily printing press, Sri Venkateswara Litho Works and Scoota Car factory, which are established prior to the notification. In the lands acquired in 1974 there were house sites formed as early as in the year 1964 and 1965 and those lands are nearer to Renigunta. Padmavathi Floor Mill and Mopeds India, a factory manufacturing scooters, also surround the acquired lands. The learned Counsel for the appellants, therefore submits that the Reference Court should have considered all these aspects and awarded adequate compensation basing on its earlier judgments. The learned Counsel for the appellants also contended that the trial Court committed a grave mistake in not considering its own judgment and decree passed in OP No.116 of 1989 as confirmed by this Court in AS No.107 of 1992 wherein the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.SOA per sq.yard.
10. The evidence of RW4, who is the owner of house site in S. No.841/1 of Thukivakkam village, has spoken to the effect that his house site is located adjacent to the main road leading to Tirupati to Renigunta, that his site was acquired by the Government for expansion of industrial area, that the same Reference Court in OP No. 116 of 1989 on Reference awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq. yard and that the same was confirmed by the High Court in AS No.107 of 1992, which has become final. According to him the lands under acquisition are 100 yards away from the lands covered by OP No.116 of 1989, that his land and the land under acquisition are the similar nature of lands having same potentiality and that they arc fully developed in all respects.
11. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the Court below committed a mistake in taking into
consideration the earlier 4(1) notification for fixing the market value of the land acquired instead of taking into account the errata notification dated 19-8-1981. For this proposition he placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Raghunath v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1988 SC 1615, wherein it was held that in respect of the lands covered by the first notification, which are also covered by or comprised in the second notification, further proceedings regarding acquisition should be taken only in pursuance of the latter notification and the proceedings initiated by the first notification should be deemed to have been . superseded. He further contended that the Court below has committed a mistake in not taking into consideration the escalation of prices in the area in respect of the lands under acquisition. He lastly contended that the judgment and decree passed by the Court below is contrary to the decision of this Court.
12. The learned Advocate-General supported the judgment and decree passed by the Court below. According to him the Court below has considered the entire material and awarded just and adequate compensation and therefore the same does not call for interference of this Court. The learned Advocate-General submitted that reliance cannot be placed on Exs.B30 and 31 as the lands covered by them relate to small bits of lands and therefore the same cannot be the basis for determining the market value of the lands under acquisition. It is also contended that the claimants are only entitled to compensation on the basis of the notification dated 30-12-1976, but not the errata notification and therefore the compensation was very rightly computed by the Court below on the basis of original notification, but not subsequent to the said date. Therefore the appeals filed by the claimants be dismissed.
13. Regarding the question whether the date of acquisition in this case will be
considered as 30-12-1976 or 19-8-1981 the Court below relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Raghunath v. State of Maharashtra, . In that case the Supreme Court held as follows :
“Before concluding, we must refer to one circumstance which was brought to our notice by learned Counsel for the petitioners and which has also been noticed in the judgment of the High Court. It appears that, between the date of withdrawal of the earlier writ petition (namely, 23rd August, 1983) and the issue of the second declaration under Section 6 (namely, 4-4-1985), the Government had issued a fresh notification under Section 4 for the acquisition of certain lands. The lands in the two notifications under Section 4 do not completely overlap but it appears that some fields are common in both. No declaration under Section 6 appears to have been issued in furtherance of the second notification under Section 4 when the High Court heard the matter. Learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that, atleast in respect of such of the lands comprised in the Section 4 notification dated 22-6-1982 as are also covered by the subsequent notification under Section 4, it is legitimate to infer that the State Government has superseded the earlier notification by the latter one. This contention is clearly well founded. We would, therefore, like to make it clear that in respect of the lands covered by the first notification under Section 4 which are also covered by or comprised in the second notification under Section 4, further proceeding regarding acquisition should be taken, in accordance with law, only in pursuance of the latter notification and the proceedings initiated in respect of such lands by the first notification dated 22-8-1982 should be deemed to have been superseded.”
14. If there is a previous decision rendered in respect of the lands in the vicinity of the lands acquired and fixed the market value in some cases, the same could be made use of, if it is shown that it could furnish basis of determining market value of the lands under acquisition. On this proposition a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Pal Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 1992 (2) APLJ (SC) 71, held as follows:
“A judgment of a Court in a land acquisition case determining the market value of a land in the vicinity of the acquired lands, even though not inter paries, could be admitted in evidence either as an instance or one from which the market value of the acquired land could be deduced or inferred. What cannot be overlooked is that for a judgment relating to value of land to be admitted in evidence either as an instance or as one from which the market value of the acquired land could be inferred or deduced, it must have been a previous judgment of Court and as an instance, it must have been proved by the person relying upon such judgment by adducing evidence aliunde that due regard being given to all attendant facts and circumstances it could furnish the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land.”
15. Firstly the question that arises for our consideration is – What is the actual date of acquisition notification that has to be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the lands acquired ?
16. It is an undisputed facts in this case that 4(1) notification was published proposing to acquire an extent of Ac.61.46 cents of dry land on 30-12-1976 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 14-4-1977, Admittedly, since the land under acquisition is plain land and without any marks of boundaries, survey of
the lands was conducted and found the proposed acquired land as Ac.57.41 cents and accordingly an errata to Section 4(1) notification was published on 19-8-1981 making the extent to be acquired as Ac.57.41 cents. Also an errata to declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on the same day and possession of the lands was taken prior to the errata notification. The lower Court on this point without giving any finding held that the date of errata to Section 4(1) notification dated 19-8-1981 shall not be taken as the date of 4(1) notification for the purpose of determining the compensation. It appears that between the date of earlier 4(1) notification i.e., 30-12-1976 and the date of issue of the second declaration under Section 6 i.e., 19-8-1981, the Government had not issued any fresh notification under Section 4 for the acquisition of certain lands. The lands in the two notifications, that is, the earlier 4(1) notification dated 30-12-1976 and the errata notification dated 19-8-1981 do not completely overlap, but it appears that some land is common in both. It may be pointed out that atleast in respect of such of the lands comprised in Section 4(1) notification dated 30-12-1976 as are also covered by the errata notification dated 19-8-1981 and some other lands, it can legitimately be inferred that the Government has superseded the earlier 4(1) notification by the errata notification issued latter on 19-8-1981. Therefore, in our considered view, the Reference Court has completely misunderstood the factum of the effect of the two notifications and erroneously took into consideration the earlier 4(1) notification for the purpose of determining the market value of the lands acquired. It, therefore, follows that necessarily the subsequent errata to 4(1) notification dated 19-8-1981 shall be taken as the date of acquisition of the present lands, as the earlier 4(1) notification is superseded by the latter one. Hence the date of errata to 4(1) notification i.e., 19-8-1981 has to be taken into consideration for
determining the market value of the acquired
lands.
17. The next question is – what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to for the lands acquired. The trial Court, discarding the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants and not giving much credence to the documents produced, held as follows :
“So, I am of the opinion that Exs.B30 and B31 transactions relied upon by the claimants are not comparable sales. There is no material on record to say that there are educational institutions or health care centres in the surrounding areas of the land acquired. The claimants did not produce any sale deeds to show that the lands around the acquired land, or, the acquired land itself, was in demand for building purpose as on the date of Section 4(1) notification. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the claimants did not establish that the lands acquired had realised building potentiality as on the date of Section 4(1) notification.”
The trial Court further held as follows :
“It is well established that the burden is on the claimants to prove the prevailing market value as on the date of Section 4(1) notification, and to establish that they are entitled to higher compensation than that fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. There is no reliable evidence in the present case to establish that the claimants are entitled to higher market value than that awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for the land acquired. However, taking into consideration the prospects existing in respect of the lands acquired on the date of Section 4(1) notification for building use, in view of their proximity to the land converted into house plots and the fact that there were already some
industries existing in the vicinity, I am inclined to increase the market value at Rs.25,929/- per acre as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer by about 20%.”
18. It is to be borne in mind that the Government for the purpose of extension of industrial development area acquired the land in question. The trial Court without looking into the very fact that the land is acquired for the purpose of extension of industrial development area and also without going into the entire material on record gave an adverse finding that there is no material on record to say that there are educational institutions or health care centres in the surrounding areas of the land acquired. It also gave a finding that the claimants did not produce any sale deeds to show that the lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself was in demand for building purpose as on the date of Section 4(1) notification. Therefore, the trial Court held that the claimants did not establish that the lands acquired had realised building potentiality as on the date of Section 4(1) notification. The adverse finding of fact recorded by the Court below for determining the compensation for the acquired lands, in our opinion, is not based upon the entire material available on record.
19. Regarding the nature and developmental activities in the vicinity of the land PW1, the Mandal Revenue Officer, himself stated that the acquired land is a plain land and abutting State High Way leading from Tirupati to Renigunta, that the entire acquired land is by the side of the road, that railway broad gauge tine is situated north of High Way leading to Renigunta, that already there are established industries and had electricity supply and telephone connections, that north of railway line CRS Office is situate and that the lands are located in well developed area. He further stated that Daminedu village revenue lands,
which are industrially developed, are situated west of the acquired lands, that Thukivakkam village lands are situated on the east and that the Erramareddipalem residential locality is situated at a distance of three or four furlongs on the south of the acquired lands. He also stated that the acquired lands are fit for establishment of industries since they were declared as industrial estate. The evidence of the Mandal Revenue Officer would go to show that the lands under acquisition are fully developed both industrially and commercially. Even according to the evidence adduced by PW1, the acquired land is very much useful for construction of buildings as industries and other establishments surround the entire area.
20. The evidence of RWs.1 to 4 is to the same effect. They deposed that immediately to the north east of the acquired lands in the year 1963 certain lands were acquired for expansion of industrial estate and as many as 32 industries were established. Ex.B12, dated 1-8-1963 is the certified copy of the notification, under which the earlier lands were acquired in the year 1963 and Ex.B11, dated 30-7-1990 is the topo sketch of the land showing the important institutions and the development in the area of Industrial Estate. It is also stated that very adjacent to the lands certain lands were acquired in the year 1974 for expansion of Industrial Estate. In the lands acquired in the year 1974 there were house sites formed as early as in the year 1964 and 1965 and those lands are nearer to Renigunta, while the lands under acquisition are nearer to Tirupati. According to them to the west of the acquired lands in the year 1972 Padmavathi Floor Mill and Mopeds India Factory were established in 1964 itself. It is in their evidence that on the north side of the acquired lands as early as in 1975 it was squarely developed with the establishment of industries like Avanthi Explosive Factory, Railway Coach Factory, Hindu Tools
Factory, APIIC godowns, Railway Workshop Hospital and Chlorate India Factory, Southern Transformers Limited of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Further after acquisition of the present land also as many as 15 industries have come up as shown in Ex.B11, dated 30-7-1990, a combined topo sketch showing the situation of land acquired and the development in the area of industrial estate, Tirupathi. It is also in their evidence that the Basic Value Register, Ex.B19, dated 31-7-1990 of the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Tirupathi shows that even in the year 1976 the value of the acquired land was Rs.31 /- per sq. yard and in the year 1982 the same rose to Rs.100/- per sq. yard and after publication of errata notification the value was at Rs.100/- per sq. yard. According to them in the year 1974 on the north-east and adjacent to the land under acquisition certain land was acquired for the purpose of second venture of APIIC and the same reference Court in OP Nos.2 of 1982 and 116 of 1989 enhanced the compensation for the said land by fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq. yard, which works out to Rs.2,42,000/- per acre with an escalation at the rate of 10% for the delay of seven years in passing the award by the Land Acquisition Officer, the certified copy of which is marked as Ex.B13, dated 19-4-1990.
21. Regarding the documents Exs.B30 and B31 21-10-1980 and 2-5-1981, as mentioned earlier, are the most important and reliable documents. The trial Court though considered those documents has failed to appreciate in applying the principle to the lands under acquisition. Those documents relating to the sale transactions in respect of house sites in Thukivakkam village, which is nearer to the lands under acquisition. They are very genuine and reliance can safely be placed on them since the said lands are covered by Sy. Nos.841 and 839 of Thukivakkam village and Sy. No.516 of Erramareddipalem village
are situate in the same locality. It is to be borne in mind that the same Reference Court in OP No. 110 of 1990, marked as Ex.B27, dated 19-4-1995 enhanced the compensation from Rs.6 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs per acre for the lands acquired in Sy. Nos.868/A2 and 867/A2 of which is surrounded by a large number of industries and commercial establishments and almost adjacent to the lands under acquisition. Ex.B27 is the copy of the judgment and decree passed by the same Reference Court in respect of the land situated in the same locality. It may be pointed out that when the same Reference Court appreciated the value of the land taking into consideration the developmental activities in the locality and enhanced the market value to those lands, the same principles should have been applied to the lands under acquisition, which are, as per the evidence, both oral and documentary, industrially and commercially developed. It is well settled that the Reference Court when deciding the matter in land acquisition cases, its previous decision has to be taken into consideration while awarding compensation. The trial Court with a wrong notion and with an erroneous view absolutely discarded its previous judgment and fixed the market value of the land acquired on a lower side and not in consonance with the actual rate prevailing at the relevant period. What all the reference Court did was that it only enhanced 20% on the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the present case. The reference Court absolutely failed to appreciate the entire material on record in arriving at a final conclusion for fixing the market value of the lands acquired.
22. Ex.B1, a combined sketch of the lands of the villages Yerramreddypalem and Thukivakkam would go to show that the acquired lands and the lands covered by Exs.B30 and B31 are situated in the same locality. Therefore the documents Exs.B30 and B31 relied upon by the claimants cannot
simply be brushed aside for the reason that the lands covered by S. Nos.839 and 841 was a subject matter of land acquisition in OP No.116 of 1989 of the same Court which has fixed the market value of the lands thereof at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq. yard and on appeal in AS No. 107 of 1992 dated 2-9-1998 the same was confirmed by this Court, which was marked as Ex.X1, dated 2-9-199S. Hence, it can safely be held that the Reference Court without going into all the aspects relating to the proper fixation of market value jumped into an erroneous conclusion and fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.31/- per sq. yard which is, in our opinion, is unreasonable and unjustified. In respect of similarly situated lands which was the subject matter of OP No.116 of 1989 whereunder compensation was fixed at Rs.50/- per sq. yard as confirmed by this Court in AS No. 107 of 1992, dated 2-9-1998 and as such the compensation in respect of the lands under acquisition do deserve for enhancement at the same rate i.e., at the rate of Rs.50/-per sq. yard.
23. The learned Advocate-General argued that a previous judgment cannot be taken as the basis for determining the market value of the lands acquired and therefore reliance cannot be placed upon the earlier judgment in OP No.116 of 1989. While dealing with the similar question, the Supreme Court in Pal Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 1992 (2) APLJ (SC) 71, held as follows:
“A judgment of a Court in a land acquisition case determining the market value of a land in the vicinity of the acquired lands, even though not inter partes, could be admitted in evidence either as an instance or one from which the market value of the acquired land could be deduced or inferred. What cannot be overlooked is that for a judgment relating to value of land to be
admitted in evidence either as an instance or as one from which the market value of the acquired land could be inferred or deduced, it must have been a previous judgment of Court and as an instance, it must have been proved by the person relying upon such judgment by adducing evidence aliunde that due regard being given to all attendant facts and circumstances it could furnish the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land.”
24. Even if one ignores the errata notification dated 19-8-1981, in view of the fact that a Division of this Court (one of us NYH, J is a member) in AS No.107 of 1992, dated 2-9-1998 confirmed the compensation awarded by the same Court in OP No.116 of 1989, dated 19-4-1990 at Rs.50/- per sq. yard with 10% escalation on the compensation amount as there was delay of seven years in passing the award from the date of notification, where the land therein was acquired in 1974, was similar and in the vicinity of the lands involved in the appeals, we hold that the claimants are entitled to compensation at Rs.2,40,000/-per acre. If escalation in price is at 10% for two years is ordered, it comes to another sum of Rs.48,000/-. Thus it works out to Rs.2,89,000/- per acre. However, we now fix the consolidated compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre.
25. For the foregoing reasons the appeals are allowed awarding the compensation for the lands acquired at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre. The claimants are entitled to all other benefits as per the Amendment Act No.68 of 1984. There shall be no order as to costs.