THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO A.S.No.235 of 2001 and X Objections Date of Judgment: 29-08-2011 Between: The Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., rep. by the General Manager, Ramagundam area. ..Appellant and 1. Korapati Satyanarayana Murthy (died per L.Rs.) and others. ..Respondents The Court made the following Common Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO A.S.No.235 of 2001 and X Objections Common Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal and X Objections arise out of the same order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli dated 14-07-2000 in O.P.No.270 of 1987 whereby and where under the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) was answered partly enhancing the compensation and fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per acre and the trees by one time over and above the compensation granted by the LAO with all statutory benefits. An extent of Ac.10.3½ gts. of land situated at Jallipalli Village of Kamanapur Mandal, Karimnagar District with fruit trees and wells were acquired for increased production of coal by Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL). Draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette dated 24-08-1982. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) after obtaining sale statistics of the preceding three years from the date of notification by Award No.18, dated 13-01-1985—Ex.B1 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.6,000/- per acre and Rs.40/- each to Guava trees, Rs.15/- each to Jamun trees, Rs.300/- each to big mango trees, Rs.100/- each to small mango trees, Rs.80/- each to tappable sendhi trees, Rs.0.30 ps. to the untappable small sendhi trees and Rs.15/- each to Gulmohar trees along with solatium and interest. Dissatisfied with the compensation granted by the LAO, when the claimants sought for reference, the matter was referred to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. The reference Court registered the same as O.P.No.270 of 1987 and issued necessary notices to the claimants. In response to notice, claimant No.1 filed claim petition stating that the lands in Sy.Nos.33 and 38 of Jallipalli village are fertile lands and he developed them by digging a bore well by spending a sum of Rs.7,000/- apart from Rs.10,000/- for construction of cattle shed etc.; that the market value of the acquired land was at Rs.16,000/- per acre at the time of acquisition; that he is able to get net income of Rs.20,000/- per year from mango tope; that he is entitled to Rs.1,500/- to each mango tree apart from Rs.27,000/- for the structures along with statutory benefits. Claimant No.7 also filed a claim statement claiming compensation for the acquired land at Rs.40,000/- per acre and Rs.8,000/- each to mango trees and Rs.5,000/- each to Guava trees etc. The rest of the claimants filed a memo adopting the claim statements of claimant Nos.1 and 7. During the course of trial on behalf of the claimants P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.A1—registered sale deed dated 22-03-1982 was marked. On behalf of LAO, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and award copy—Ex.B1 was marked. The learned reference Court after critically analyzing the oral and documentary evidence fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.12,000/- per acre and the trees one time over and above the compensation granted by the LAO with all statutory benefits. Questioning the enhancement so made, the requisitioning department— SCCL filed the present appeal in which the claimants filed X Objections claiming compensation at Rs.25,000/- per acre and Rs.6,000/- for 129 big mango trees; Rs.6,000/- for 70 small mango trees; Rs.500/- for 42 tappable sendhi trees; Rs.300/- for 58 untappable sendhi trees; Rs.300/- for 15 small untappable sendhi trees; Rs.5,000/- for 4 Guava trees and Rs.2,000/- for 5 Jamun trees. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also for the claimants/X Objectors. Learned counsel for the appellant—Singareni Collieries Company Limited brought to our notice a judgment in A.S.No.1758 of 1999 and X Objections (SR) No.82471 of 1999 which arise out of O.P.No.48 of 1993, where the LAO granted Rs.6,000/- per acre and it was enhanced to Rs.14,000/- per acre by the civil court. On further appeal, this Court confirmed the same. Ex.A1 which is marked herein is also marked as Ex.A2 in the said O.P.48 of 1993. This Court while confirming the award passed by the reference court observed after deducting 1/3rd from the sale price of Rs.20,000/- per acre towards expenses; the extent covered by Ex.A2 is only Ac.0.10 gts. fixed the marked value of the acquired land at Rs.13,333/- per acre and was rounded to Rs.14,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. In view of the same, claimants herein are also entitled to enhancement of market value at Rs.14,000/- per acre as against Rs.12,000/- awarded by the reference Court. Coming to the enhancement sought by the claimants in the X Objections with regard to mango trees are concerned, claimant No.7, who was examined as P.W.1, stated that he planted mango trees in the acquired land twelve years prior to the date of notification and the mango trees will yield fruits at the age of five years and he used to get Rs.10,000/- and more every year. Claimant No.1 planted mango trees in the acquired land just before two or three years before to the plantation made by him and he also used to get Rs.20,000/- and more every year. He also stated before the LAO at the time of award enquiry he claimed compensation at Rs.40,000/- per acre for the acquired lands and Rs.8,000/- for each mango trees apart from compensation for Guava and Jamun trees. P.W.2 also deposed in the same manner stating that he used to get Rs.500/- per year for each Guava tree and Rs.200/- per year for each Jamun tree. Claimant Nos.3 and 8 are lessees of mango garden in the acquired lands. He also deposed that mango tope was 13 years old at the time of acquisition and entire land in Sy.No.63 are mango trees. P.W.3 deposed that he along with another took the mango garden from claimant Nos.7 and 6 on lease for Rs.10,000/- for one year under Ex.A1—lease deed which was executed 15 years back. Patwari of Jallipalli village who was the attestor of Ex.A2 sale deed was examined as P.W.4 and purchaser of Ex.A2 was examined as P.W.5. P.W.6 is also an attestor of the said document—Ex.A2. P.W.7, who is the eldest son of claimant No.1, deposed that there are 100 mango trees, 42 tappable sendhi trees and 52 untappable sendhi trees in Sy.No.33; the lands were acquired at the time of yielding the mangos; in the year 1980-81 he leased out mango garden for Rs.20,000/- per year and in the year 1980-81 for Rs.25,000/- per year. P.W.8 deposed that he took the mango garden from claimant No.1 on lease in the year 1981-82 for Rs.25,000/- per year. As against the above evidence the Deputy Manager in Corporate Planning Department in Singareni Collieries Company Limited was examined as R.W.1. He has not stated anything about the trees standing in the acquired lands. The Senior Assistant working in the office of RDO, Peddapalli was examined as R.W.2. He deposed that LAO after considering the oral and documentary evidence awarded compensation of Rs.6,000/- per acre and he can identify the signature of the LAO. Under Ex.B1—award, there are 95 big mango trees which were awarded Rs.300/- per tree and they belongs to claimant No.1 (Korapati Satyanaryana died per L.Rs.14); 70 small mango trees which were awarded Rs.100/- per tree belongs to claimant No.10 (Parati Venktat Reddy); 8 mango trees, which were awarded at Rs.300/- per tree, were existing in Sy.No.40; 34 mango trees, which were existed in Sy.No.33, were awarded Rs.300/- per tree. If we go by the same award, LAO fixed the market value of the mango trees on capitalization method and awarded lumsum of Rs.300/- for big mango trees and Rs.200/- for small mango trees. The evidence adduced by the claimants shows that mango trees are well nourished and fruit bearing trees for the purpose of realizing the income. It is fairly well settled principle of law that if the entire land is covered by fruit bearing trees, the compensation can be fixed on the capitalization method by adopting 10 years purchase. But in the case on hand, the entire land is not covered by mango garden or fruit bearing trees except 200 mango trees spread over in Ac.10.3½ gts. of land, the market value cannot be fixed on capitalization method. Since the market value of the land is separately fixed at Rs.14,000/- per acre, we fix the market value of each mango tree at Rs.300/- by applying 10 years purchase it comes to Rs.3,000/- per tree. We accordingly fix the market value of the acquired mango trees big and small numbering 129+70 at Rs.3,000/- for each mango tree. There is no evidence with regard to income derived from sendhi trees etc. Accordingly, X Objections are partly allowed fixing the market value of the mango trees only at Rs.3,000/- per tree by applying 10 years purchase. The claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits on the enhanced market value as per the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in SUNDER v. UNION OF INDIA[1]. In view of the same, the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.14,000/- per acre and Rs.3,000/- per each mango tree. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and X Objections are partly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. _____________ K.S.APPA RAO,J. 29-08-2011 Murthy [1] (2001) 7 SCC 211