- (1.) The appellant is the owner of 18 gunthas of land, i. e. , 2178 sq. yards, situated in Ward No. 5, Block No. 7 in Adilabad Municipality of A. P. , which was proposed for acquisition under notification issued under Section 4 (1 of the Land Acquisition Act and published on 17/04/1975, for apublic purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation on the basis of letting value. On reference under Section 18, the Additional District Judge, Adilabad in his award and decree enhanced the market value to Rs. 75. 00 per sq. yard. Not having been satisfied, the appellant filed the appeal in the High court and claimed Rs. 300. 00 per sq. yard. The High court by the impugned judgment and decree dated 29-10-82, dismissed the appeal.
(2.) Shri A. K. Ganguli, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the High court having accepted that the acquired lands were situated in the heart of the municipal area; the State Bank of Hyderabad and the Andhra Bank were located on the eastern and western sides across the roads; Gandhi Chowk Market and Ambedkar Chowk Market also existed on the National Highway towards Nagpur each at a distance of 200 yards from the land; two cinema theatres were situated at a distance of 50 to 60 yards from the acquired site; three cooperative consumers' stores were situated at a short distance of 10 yards from the acquired land; the Basic Valuation Register showed that for stamp duty the Revenue Authorities had fixed the market value in commercial area at Rs. 300. 00 (on complaints being reduced to Rs. 250. 00 and for residential area Rs. 75. 00 per sq. yard, it should have seen that the land had a very high market value. The Revenue Authorities themselves having determined market value in that area at Rs. 300. 00 per sq. yard for purposes of stamp duty, unless the respondent produced contra-evidence, which was not done, the Basic Valuation Register formed foundation to determine the market value of acquired land at Rs. 300. 00. The fixation of market value at Rs. 75. 00 per sq. yard was unjust and arbitrary. It is also contended that the appellant is entitled to interest at 6% under the Act. The State Act has no application to and the owner cannot be discriminated in payment only at the rate of 4%, while other land acquired for central government would get interest at the rate of 6%.
(3.) Having given anxious consideration to the contentions we find them to be without force. Though the District court fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 75. 00 per sq. yard, the State did not file any cross-objection or appeal. So the need for the High court to go into the question whether fixation of the market value at Rs. 75. 00 per sq. yard was high did not arise. The High court held that the post-notification sale deeds were not admissible as none of the persons connected with them were examined to establish the genuineness of the sales or of similarity of the lands acquired and those covered in the sale transactions. It also rejected the agreements of sales finding them to be those fabricated to inflate the market value. We cannot find fault with the approach made by the High court in the facts and 9 circumstances of the case. The sales claimed to be comparable were rightly not acted upon.;