JUDGMENT : A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J. Introductory :- [i] Appeal in LAAS No.126 of 2019 is filed under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Act 30 of 2013] r/w Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and directed against an award passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in LAOP No.104 of 2015 dated 01.05.2019. [ii] The Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) and Land Acquisition Officer, Vijayawada, who made reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is the appellant herein. Cross-Objections are made by the claimants vide Cross-Objections No.36 of 2024. Facto matrix:- 2. [i] Since the appeal and the Cross-Objections are pertaining to fixation of fair compensation pertaining to the lands acquired and as the contentions and issue involved being the same, both the matters are being answered together. [ii] Government of Andhra Pradesh through APCRDA, Vijayawada acquired land measuring 795 Sq. Yards in R.S.No.78/1B of Payakapuram village for development of widening and formation of inner ring road VGTM Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada. [iii] An Award No.3 of 2015, dated 06.06.2015 was passed awarding a compensation of Rs.3446/- per Sq.Yard. Compensation of Rs.31,01,587/- to the clamant No.1 and Rs.2,99,820/- to the claimant No.2 was awarded in respect of their lands in an extent of 435 Sq. yards and 42.5 Sq.Yards respectively. Since dissatisfaction was expressed by the claimants, reference was made. [iv] Considering the claim statements of claimants No.1 and 2, where they have proposed the market value of Rs.50,000/- per Sq. yard, the learned Senior Civil Judge, after referring to the evidence, fixed the value at Rs.20,000/-per Sq. yard. [v] Questioning the same, the government has filed the present appeal and the claimants filed Cross-objections. Contention of the appellant/government:- 3. [i] There is no documentary proof to show the market value of the property acquired @Rs.20,000/- per Sq. yard. [ii] The increase is abnormally high. [iii] The land value Certificate shows only Rs.5000/- which is of the year 2015, as per Ex.R3. [iv] When the award is of the year 2015, the market value as on that year, even if taken, the value cannot be more than Rs.5000/- per Sq. Yard. [v] Considering average of the market values of the years 2009-2012, which approximately average of corresponding 3 years, the Land Acquisition Officer, rightly fixed the market value. [iv] When the award is of the year 2015, the market value as on that year, even if taken, the value cannot be more than Rs.5000/- per Sq. Yard. [v] Considering average of the market values of the years 2009-2012, which approximately average of corresponding 3 years, the Land Acquisition Officer, rightly fixed the market value. [vi] Learned Senior Civil Judge, while rejecting Exs.R1 and R2, being the market value of the year subsequent to the award, erred in fixing the market value double the value mentioned in Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 [vii] The judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge is against Sections 26 and 29 of the Act 30 of 2013, which provides for determination of market value and the parameters as to adopting average sale particulars of similarly situated lands. In Cross-Objections No.36 of 2024:- Arguments of the claimants :- 4. [i] Learned Senior Civil Judge, ought to have considered that the lands acquired is situated in prime locality and will fetch not less than Rs.40,000/- per Sq. yard. [ii] Learned Senior Civil Judge ought to have considered that Ex.R6 and Ex.R7, sale deeds, which clearly show that the Sub-Registrar valued the land @Rs.11,000/- per Sq.Yard, then the market value must be much more higher. [iii] The document under Ex.R1 to R4 must have been appreciated in proper perspective and the market value should have been fixed at Rs.40,000/- as prayed by the claimants. 5. Heard the extensive arguments submitted by both sides. 6. Points that arise for determination in this appeal and cross-objections are:- 1) Whether the market value of the land fixed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, vide Orders in LAOP No.104 of 2015, dated 01.05.2019 @Rs.20,000/- per Sq. Yard is just, reasonable and adequate? Or require any modification? If so, to what extent? 2) What is the result of the appeal? 3) What is the result of the Cross-Objections? Point No.1:- Analysis, reasoning and Findings:- 7. It is clear that the land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value @Rs.3,446/- per Sq. yard. The demand is made for fixing the market value at Rs.40,000/- per Sq. yard, by the claimants. The compensation awarded and paid at Rs.31,01,587/- and Rs.3,45,388/- by claimants 1 and 2 respectively, was received under protest. The average sale price is fixed at Rs.3446/- per sq. yard. yard. The demand is made for fixing the market value at Rs.40,000/- per Sq. yard, by the claimants. The compensation awarded and paid at Rs.31,01,587/- and Rs.3,45,388/- by claimants 1 and 2 respectively, was received under protest. The average sale price is fixed at Rs.3446/- per sq. yard. As per the protest letter submitted, it was mentioned that the market value recorded by the Collector was @4,580/- per Sq. yard and the value as per the Registration department is also not considered. 8. The justification for enhancement urged by the claimants is that an RCC slab structure worth Rs.3,00,000/- existed in their land, for which no value is paid and that the prevalent market value is Rs.50,000/- Sq. Yard but the claimants claimed only Rs.40,000/- per Sq. yard. 9. Claimant No.1/N.Venkata Surya Prakasha Rao is examined as RW.1. He stated that the market value fixed is very low. Even the book value of Sub- Registrar office is not followed. The valuation Certificates of the year 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 are submitted. As per Ex.R1, the date of issue of which is 23.03.2017, the market value per Sq. yard is Rs.9000/- as on 01.01.2017. As on 23.03.2017, the value is Rs.8000/- but the same is corrected as Rs.9,000/- per Sq. yard. As per market value Certificate 01.01.2015, property value is mentioned as Rs.5000/- per Sq. yard. As on 01.01.2014 also the value is mentioned as Rs.5000/-. As on 01.01.2013, the value is mentioned as Rs.3,300/-. As per Ex.R6, the sale deed dated 10.12.2014, value of Square yard is mentioned as Rs.11,000/-. However, the objection for this is that such value is in respect of Flat and as per Ex.R7-the mortgage deed, @Rs.40,00,000/- loan is transacted in respect of a structure measuring 35.73Sq.yard. 10. Learned Senior Civil Judge, while addressing the acceptability of the market value @3,446/- adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer and examining whether the market value can be accepted @Rs.40,000/- per Sq. yard as claimed by the claimants, has observed at Para 8 of the judgment that market value as on the date of the award was Rs.5000/- as per Ex.R3 filed by the claimants and even as per Ex.R6, the property value cannot be taken as Rs.40,000/-. From the material placed by the claimants, there is hike in the market value of the properties, therefore, the Court inclined to fix market value @Rs.20,000/-. 11. From the material placed by the claimants, there is hike in the market value of the properties, therefore, the Court inclined to fix market value @Rs.20,000/-. 11. Market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer @3,446/- is not acceptable as the same is low and the highest book value as per records is found @Rs.11,000/- per Sq. yard as per Ex.R6. The argument of the claimants is that always the Sub-Registrar’s valuation and the actual market value will be different. 12. (i) The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adialabad, A.P. and Others , 1994 (4) SCC 595 has considered the point whether the basic value registered is the evidence to determine the market value. Observations in para 5 of the judgment are exhaustive on the subject. They are as follows:- 5. The question, therefore, is whether the Basic Valuation Register is evidence to determine the market value. This Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. T. Adhinarayan Setty [ AIR 1959 SC 429 : 1959 Supp 1 SCR 404 : 1959 Cri LJ 526] in paragraph 9 held that the function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of the notification under Section 4(1). The methods of valuation may be (1) opinion of experts (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (3) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. Same was the view in Tribeni Devi v. Collector of Ranchi [ (1972) 1 SCC 480 : (1972) 3 SCR 208 ] . It was reiterated in catena of decisions, vide, Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala [ (1991) 4 SCC 195 ] . Therefore, it is settled law that in determining the market value, the Court has to take into account either one or the other three methods to determine market value of the lands appropriate on the facts of a given case to determine the market value. Generally the second method of valuation is accepted as the best. The question, therefore, is whether the Basic Valuation Register would form foundation to determine the market value. Generally the second method of valuation is accepted as the best. The question, therefore, is whether the Basic Valuation Register would form foundation to determine the market value. The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides the power to prescribe stamp duty on instruments, etc. Entry 44 of List III, Concurrent List, of the VIIth Schedule read with Article 254 of the Constitution empowers the State Legislature to amend the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. In exercise thereof all the State Legislatures including the Legislature of A.P. amended the Act and enacted Section 47-A empowering the registering officer to levy stamp duty on instruments of conveyance, etc., if the registering officer has reason to believe that the market value of the property, covered by the conveyance, exchange, gift, release of right or settlement, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may refuse registering such instrument and refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. On receipt of such opinion, he may call upon the vendor as per the rules prescribed, to pay the additional duty thereon. If the vendor is dissatisfied, he has been given the right to file an appeal and further getting reference made to the High Court for decision in that behalf. Section 47-A would thus clearly show that the exercise of the power thereunder is with reference to a particular land covered by the instrument brought for registration. When he has reasons to believe it to be undervalued, he should get verified whether the market value was truly reflected in the instrument for the purpose of stamp duty; the Collector on reference could determine the same on the basis of the prevailing market value. Section 47-A conferred no express power to the Government to determine the market value of the lands prevailing in a particular area, village, block, district or the region and to maintain Basic Valuation Register for levy of stamp duty for registration of an instrument, etc. No other statutory provision or rule having statutory force has been brought to our notice in support thereof. No other statutory provision or rule having statutory force has been brought to our notice in support thereof. Whether an instrument is liable for higher stamp duty on the basis of valuation maintained in the Basic Valuation Register, came up for consideration in Sagar Cements Ltd. v. State of A.P. [(1989) 3 Andh LT 677] B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J., as he then was, considered the question and held that the Government has unilaterally fixed the valuation of the lands, the Basic Valuation Register had no statutory foundation and therefore it does not bind the parties. Neither the Registrar nor the vendor is bound by it. The market value of the land for proper stamp duty has to be determined as per the law under Section 47-A itself. That view was followed by another learned Single Judge in P. Sasidar v. Sub-Registrar [(1992) 1 Andh LT 49] . It is, therefore, clear that the Basic Valuation Register prepared and maintained for the purpose of collecting stamp duty has no statutory base or force. It cannot form a foundation to determine the market value mentioned thereunder in instrument brought for registration. Equally it would not be a basis to determine the market value under Section 23 of the Act, of the lands acquired in that area or town or the locality or the taluk etc. Evidence of bona fide sales between willing prudent vendor and prudent vendee of the lands acquired or situated near about that land possessing same or similar advantageous features would furnish basis to determine market value. The Division Bench followed, in support of its view a decision of another Division Bench in Land Acquisition Officer v. Venkateswara Prasad [ A.S. No. 880 of 1980, decided on 11-11-1981] which also decided that Basic Valuation Register cannot be relied on to determine the market value. It would appear that in Govt. of A.P. v. Sohan Lal [(1988) 2 Andh LT 306] a Division Bench of that High Court, without noticing these two binding decisions, held that the Basic Valuation Register would form foundation to determine the market value and directed to determine the compensation on that basis. The entire controversy was considered by yet another Division Bench in Vasireddi Bharata Rao v. Revenue Divisional Officer [(1992) 1 Andh LT 591] . The entire controversy was considered by yet another Division Bench in Vasireddi Bharata Rao v. Revenue Divisional Officer [(1992) 1 Andh LT 591] . The Division Bench, after considering the case law disagreeing with Sohan Lal [(1988) 2 Andh LT 306] view as per incuriam, also reiterated that the Basic Valuation Register maintained by the registering authority has no statutory foundation to determine the market value and cannot form the base under Section 23(1) to determine the market value. This Court in Gulzara Singh v. State of Punjab [ (1993) 4 SCC 245 ] held that mutation entries of the land transactions in the revenue records are not evidence unless the parties to the transactions have been examined in proof of documents. In Director of Survey-cum-LAO v. Mohd. Ghouse [ (1985) 1 MLJ 116 ] relied on by Mr Ganguli, the Division Bench of Madras High Court, relying upon the instructions issued by the Government to determine the market value for the purpose of registration of the instrument under Section 47-A, held that it would form basis to determine the market value under Section 23 in an appropriate case, subject to proof of the market value. What were the instructions issued by the Government and whether they had any statutory foundation, have not been stated by the Division Bench. If the broad proposition of law that under Section 47-A of Stamp Act such instructions could be issued, as contended for the appellant herein, as appears to be the view of the High Court, it is not correct law. As we have already noted, Section 47-A being local amendment, made by each State Legislature did not find any such statutory basis. Like A.P. Act, Tamil Nadu Act is also referable to transactions intra vivos and not as general guidelines. If they are based on evidence inter partes it would be consistent with Section 47-A. Accordingly we hold that the basic value of registration has no statutory base. It cannot form any basis to determine the market value of the acquired lands under Section 23 of the Act. If they are based on evidence inter partes it would be consistent with Section 47-A. Accordingly we hold that the basic value of registration has no statutory base. It cannot form any basis to determine the market value of the acquired lands under Section 23 of the Act. The burden of proof is always on the claimant to prove, in each case the prevailing market value as on the date of notification published in the State Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Act with reference to the sale deeds of the same lands or neighbour's lands possessed of same or similar advantages and features executed between willing vendor and willing vendee or other relevant evidence in the reference court. The State did not file any appeal against the award of the reference court which itself is a matter gone in favour of the appellant. We do not find any justification to further enhance the market value.” (ii) In V.N. Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and Others, (2009) 7 SCC 438 , the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide paragraph 16, has interpreted the market value to mean that the market value would be such as would have fetched or would fetch if sold in the open market on the date of execution of instrument of conveyance. Further, a Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in a case between Mohd. Abbas Shafi Vs. Sub- Registrar, Khairatabad, 1996 SCC OnLine AP 181: (1996) 3 ALD 459 considered the possibility of difference between actual market value and the valuation in the Registrar Office for basic value register. The value mentioned in Basic Register is only a matter of guidance but it cannot be final and the same cannot be considered as a last say. It is a matter of common knowledge that, depending on the location and condition of the property, the value can be different from the Sub-Registrar valuation. 13. Further, it is a fact that the land is acquired for the purpose of laying inner ring road and that the land acquired is situated in a prime locality. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the claimant No.1 is suffering with serious health ailments and the compensation amount is very much necessary for his medical needs also. 14. Further, it is a fact that the land is acquired for the purpose of laying inner ring road and that the land acquired is situated in a prime locality. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the claimant No.1 is suffering with serious health ailments and the compensation amount is very much necessary for his medical needs also. 14. Upon considering the facts and circumstances and the locality of the subject property, the argument of the government that the value assessed by the learned Senior Civil Judge @ Rs.20,000/- per Sq. yard is high, is found not convincing. Equally, the argument of the claimants that the enhancement should have been @Rs.40,000/- per Sq. yard is also found not convincing. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the value fixed @Rs.20,000/- per Sq. yard is just and reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders. Point framed is answered accordingly, Points 2 and 3:- 15. In the result, both the Land Acquisition Appeal and the Cross-Objections are dismissed, confirming the impugned orders of the reference Court in LAOP No.104 of 2015 dated 01.05.2019, in all aspects. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.