JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) Heard Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer. 2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the order and decree dated 04.06.2007 passed in O.P.No.40 of 1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir (hereinafter referred to as “the Reference Court’). 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that on a requisition sent by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D (R & B), Nalgonda, vide letter dated 13.10.1988, the subject lands to an extent of Acs.4.22 guntas, which includes an extent of Acs.3.22 guntas of dry lands and an extent of Ac.1.00 of wet lands, situated in Sy.Nos.162, 163, 164, 165, 166 and 85 of Anantaram Village, Nalgonda District, belonging to the appellant/claimant were acquired for construction of Road over Bridge to eliminate three level crossings across Hyderabad-Kazipet broad gauge railway line between Bibinagar and Anantaram Railway crossings; that Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the District Gazette on 22.07.1989; that draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the District Gazette on 07.08.1989; that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award vide proceedings No.B/4763/88, dated 02.08.1991, granting compensation @ Rs.6,500/- per acre for dry lands and @ Rs.10,000/- per acre for wet lands. 4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant/claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered as O.P.No.40 of 1998 on the file of the Reference Court. 5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellant/ claimant, P.W-1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined and Ex.B-1-Award was marked. 6. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, confirmed the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is filed. 7. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined and Ex.B-1-Award was marked. 6. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, confirmed the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is filed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the Reference Court without properly appreciating the evidence on record, particularly, Exs.A-1 to A-3, erred in confirming the meager compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer; that the Reference Court failed to take note of the fact that initially, the compensation was estimated @ Rs.49,293.14 paise per acre and compensation of Rs.2,11,488/- being 80% of the compensation was paid to the appellant, however, later, the Land Acquisition Officer initiated proceedings for recovery of excess amount of Rs.1,66,458.86 paise; that the Reference Court also grossly erred in not granting any statutory benefits under the Act to the appellant-claimant; and that therefore, the impugned order passed by the Reference Court suffers from illegality and infirmity and prayed to allow this Appeal. 8. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer that the Reference Court has appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective and rightly confirmed the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, this Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Undisputedly, an extent of Acs.4.22 guntas of land, which includes both wet and dry lands, belonging to the appellant-claimant was acquired for the purpose of construction of Road over Bridge. Even prior to issuance of draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, possession of the subject lands was taken on 19.12.1988 invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act and a sum of Rs.2,11,488/-, representing 80% of the compensation towards the acquired lands, was paid to the appellant-claimant on 28.6.1989. Thereafter, the proceedings initiated for recovery of alleged excess amount of Rs.1,66,458.86 paise were stalled on the directions of this Court, vide WP.No.14632 of 1991, dated 17.03.2003. 10. The appellant-claimant contended that the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded meager compensation and the Reference Court has confirmed the same without looking into the potentiality of the acquired lands and without taking into consideration the exhibits, Exs.A-1 to A-3-sale deeds. 11. 10. The appellant-claimant contended that the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded meager compensation and the Reference Court has confirmed the same without looking into the potentiality of the acquired lands and without taking into consideration the exhibits, Exs.A-1 to A-3-sale deeds. 11. To determine the market value of the acquired lands, this Court has undertaken the exercise of minutely evaluating the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, which was confirmed by the Reference Court, on a Reference. 12. In the Award, there is a mention of the sale deeds covered under Exs.A-1 to A-3. Both Exs.A-1 and A-2 are dated 10.11.1988 and each of the sale deeds pertains to sale of land to an extent of 121 square yards situated in Sy.No.85 for Rs.12,100/-, which works out to Rs.4,84,400/- per acre. Admittedly, both Exs.A-1 and A-2 are executed by the appellant-claimant herself in favour of third parties. 13. In order to assess the genuineness of Exs.A-1 and A-2, the same are tested with the touchstone of certain dates of events that happened in the process of acquisition, which are as follows:- (1) Letter addressed by the Executive Engineer PWD (R&B), Nalgonda, proposing to acquire the subject land …13.10.1988 (2) Date of taking possession of acquired land …19.12.1988 14. Thus, from the above, it is clear that there is a time gap of two months from the date of submission of proposal by the Requisition Officer for acquisition of the subject lands and the actual date of taking possession of the acquired lands invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act. Exs.A-1 and A-2-sale deeds are dated 10.11.1988. Thus, from the aforesaid dates, it is borne out that Exs.A-1 and A-2 were executed in the interregnum period of date of submission of proposal for acquisition and the date of taking actual possession. Precisely, the sale deeds under Exs.A-1 and A-2 were executed on 10.11.1988, i.e., one month after the proposal for acquisition of the subject lands and about 40 days prior to taking of possession of the acquired lands. 15. Precisely, the sale deeds under Exs.A-1 and A-2 were executed on 10.11.1988, i.e., one month after the proposal for acquisition of the subject lands and about 40 days prior to taking of possession of the acquired lands. 15. It is common knowledge that on a requisition sent by a particular department proposing to acquire certain extent of land for a specific public purpose, the personnel of Survey Department conduct a survey of the proposed acquired lands and thereafter, a sub-division record is prepared by them and by taking the same into account, the proposals for publication of the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, etc., takes place. So, in the instant case, it appears that the appellant-claimant having come to know that survey of her lands had been conducted for the purpose of acquisition, seems to have acted artfully and executed the sale deeds-Exs.A-1 and A-2 in favour of third parties, probably to boost the market value of the subject acquired lands. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not appropriate to rely upon Exs.A-1 and A-2 for determining the market value of the acquired lands. 16. Coming to Ex.A-3-sale deed, the same was executed on 21.01.1989, i.e., nearly about a month after taking of possession of the subject acquired lands. Further, the appellant-claimant has not examined any witness to prove Ex.A-3. Hence, the said document cannot be taken as an exemplar sale deed unless it is proved to be a genuine transaction for fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands. 17. Except Exs.A-1 to A-3, which are discarded for the aforestated reasons, the appellant-claimant has not produced any other evidence in support of her claim for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Reference Court. 18. As such, it has become indispensable for this Court to delve deep into the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and refer to the sale transactions referred to therein in order to fix just and reasonable compensation for the subject acquired lands. 19. A perusal of the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer goes to show that in the sale statistics, he has referred to the sale deeds for three years preceding the date of 4(1) notification, whereunder the lands which are situated at a distance of 0.25 km to 1.75 kms i.e., less than 2 kms from the acquired lands, are executed. As many as 16 sale deeds were referred to, which includes Exs.A-1 to A-3. 20. It is apt here to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab, (2012) 5 SCC 432 , wherein it is held that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted for fixing the market value of the acquired lands. 21. Following the said judgment, in the instant case, it is to be seen that the sale deed, dated 19.09.1986, (referred to in the Award by the Land Acquisition Officer) in respect of dry land admeasuring 847 square yards in Sy.No.136, which is at a distance of 0.50 km from the subject acquired lands and was executed for a consideration of Rs.8,000/-, which works out to Rs.45,714/- per acre, has to be considered as an exemplar sale deed. Furthermore, as the said sale deed relates to three years prior to date of 4(1) notification, dated 22.07.1989, by applying the rule of 10% increase per annum for award of higher compensation as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Harpat Singh, (2009) 14 SCC 375 , it is desirable to give cumulative escalation of 10% per annum, which for three years works out to Rs.60,844/- per acre. Nevertheless, since the transaction under the aforesaid sale deed is on yardage basis, which probably took place for residential purposes, whereas, admittedly, the subject acquired lands are agricultural lands, this Court feels it appropriate to deduct 1/3rd of the said amount towards developmental charges. By computing thus, the compensation for the subject acquired lands works out to Rs.40,562/- per acre, i.e., for an extent of Acs.3.22 guntas of dry land, the appellant-claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,43,994/- and for an extent of Ac.1.00 of wet land, the appellant-claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.45,000/- per acre. 22. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar and another Vs. State of Haryana, , wherein a ratio was laid down that the amount of compensation that a Court can award is no longer restricted to the amount claimed by the claimant, is duly followed by this Court. 23. 22. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar and another Vs. State of Haryana, , wherein a ratio was laid down that the amount of compensation that a Court can award is no longer restricted to the amount claimed by the claimant, is duly followed by this Court. 23. Further, it is the case of the appellant-claimant that due to acquisition of the subject acquired lands, land to an extent of Acs.0.30 guntas belonging to her was severed from the remaining land. The severance of the land belonging to the appellant-claimant is not in dispute. However, on a perusal of the claim and contentions of the appellant-claimant, this Court is of the view that the reasons assigned by the Reference Court declining to grant compensation for the said extent of Ac.0.30 guntas of severed land are not reasonable and valid. The appellant-claimant, having suffered loss of approach land to the said land admeasuring Ac.0.30 guntas, is entitled to compensation for the same and accordingly, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is granted therefor. In all, the appellant-claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,98,994/-. 24. As regards the claim of the appellant-claimant for granting compensation for the trees numbering 180 that were existing in the acquired lands, as observed by the Reference Court, except the self-supporting testimony of the appellant-claimant, no other evidence was adduced by her in support thereof. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Reference Court has rightly declined to grant compensation for the said trees since the appellant-claimant miserably failed to prove their existence in the acquired lands. As such, the appellant-claimant is not entitled to any compensation in that regard. 25. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Appeal is allowed in part, fixing the compensation for the subject acquired lands and also for severance of land to an extent of Ac.0.30 guntas as Rs.1,98,994/-.. She is also entitled to 12% additional market value on the aforesaid fixed market value from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of passing of Award. However, while paying the compensation to the appellant-claimant as directed above, the respondent shall duly take into account the sum of Rs.2,11,488/- already paid to the appellant-claimant on 28.06.1989 under Section 17 of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 26. However, while paying the compensation to the appellant-claimant as directed above, the respondent shall duly take into account the sum of Rs.2,11,488/- already paid to the appellant-claimant on 28.06.1989 under Section 17 of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 26. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.