HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA A.S.Nos.1677 of 1999 & 3929, 3930, 3971, 3982, 3999, 4001, 660 of 2000 and 1087 of 2002 fDated: 08-09-2011 A.S.No.1677 of 1999 Between: Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Y.L.M.C., Anakapalli Appellant AND Cheepurupalli Peda Simhachalam and others Respondents A.S.No.3929 of 2000 Between: Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Y.L.M.C., Anakapalli Appellant AND Uppala Venkunaidu Respondent A.S.No.3930 of 2000 Between: Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Y.L.M.C., Anakapalli Appellant AND Cheepurupalli Simhachalam Respondent A.S.No.3971 of 2000 Between: Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Y.L.M.C., Anakapalli Appellant AND Vennela Appala Naidu Respondent A.S.No.3982 of 2000 Between: Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Y.L.M.C., Anakapalli Appellant AND Gandi Reddy Naidu Respondent A.S.No.3999 of 2000 Between: Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Y.L.M.C., Anakapalli Appellant AND Gandi Sanni Babu Respondent A.S.No.4001 of 2000 Between: Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Y.L.M.C., Anakapalli Appellant AND Gandi Ramu Naidu Respondent A.S.No.660 of 2000 Between: Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Y.L.M.C., Anakapalli Appellant AND Vuppala Chinna Sannibabu Respondent A.S.No.1087 of 2002 Between: Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Y.L.M.C., Anakapalli Appellant AND Cheerupalli Narayana and others Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA A.S.Nos.1677 of 1999 & 3929, 3930, 3971, 3982, 3999, 4001, 660 of 2000 and 1087 of 2002 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) All these batch of appeals are preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer against the common order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Anakapalli in O.P.No.108 of 1988 and batch dated 30.9.1996 which arose out of the common award of the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.17 of 1986 dated 22.9.1986. Therefore, all these appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this Common judgment. An extent of Ac.5.24 cents of land covered by Award No.17 of 1986, dated 22.9.1986 was acquired by Government upon requisition of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Power Department, Visakhapatnam for acquisition of the land for excavation of Rywada Channel by issuing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act’) dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act dated 11.2.1981. It was published in the A.P. Gazette on 30.3.1981 and approved in G.O.Rt.No.272 dated 3.3.1984. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 22.9.1986 fixed the value of the acquired land covered by mango tope at Rs.25,868/- per acre and for the vacant land of Ac.0.23 cents covered by O.P.No.114 of 1988 at Rs.4,000/- per acre. The claimants in the present batch of O.Ps., covering the land of Ac.3.97 cents of Mango tope and Ac.0.23 cents of vacant land sought for reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for due determination of the market value. On reference being made, the claimants appeared and filed identical claim statements before the reference Court claiming compensation on capitalization method at Rs.1,000/- per mango tree at 33 1/3 years purchase. To prove the market value, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the referring Officer, R.W.1 was examined and the award copy was marked as Ex.B.1. The reference Court after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties including the previous awards made under Exs.A.2,A.5 and A.6, wherein the compensation for the fruit bearing mango trees was fixed at Rs.10,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.18,000/-, fixed the market value for each mango tree at Rs.15,000/- and for the land of Ac.0.23 cents covered by O.P.No.114 of 1988, enhanced the market value from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.15,391/- per acre. Questioning the same, the present appeals have been filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals contends that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the trees on the basis of letter of Director of Horticulture Department marked as Ex.A.1, dated 15.3.1986, wherein the market value for each mango tree was assessed at Rs.180/-. Even if the multiplier 10 is added thereto, the claimants are entitled to Rs.1800/- per each tree but not more than that. Therefore, the reference Court is not justified in enhancing the compensation to Rs.15,000/- per tree on the basis of earlier awards passed in Exs.A.2,A.5 and A.6. In the absence of any evidence adduced by the claimants that each mango tree will yield an income of Rs.1000/- per annum, the same cannot be taken into consideration. Further the cultivation expenses have to be deducted and even if it is deducted from the said income at 20 per cent, each tree can yield an income of Rs.800/- and if 10 multiplier is added thereto, the market value of each tree comes to Rs.8,000/- but not more than that. Per contra, A.V.Sesha Sai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants contends that fixation of the market value of the orange trees on capitalization method at 20 years purchase has been upheld by the Apex Court in State of Madras v. Rev. Brother Joseph[1] and subsequently, the Apex Court in Union of India and another v. Shanti Devi[2] applied 15 multiplier and following the same, 16 multiplier adopted by the Orissa High Court was held to be reasonable and approved by the Apex Court in Executive Director v. Sarat Chandra Bisoi and another[3]. In view of the same, fixation of the compensation by the reference Court at Rs.15,000/- for each tree and Rs.15,391/- per acre for the land covered by O.P.No.114 of 1988 needs no interference by this Court. P.W.1, the claimant in O.P.No.1 of 1989 deposed on behalf of the claimants in O.P.Nos.108 of 1988 to 117 of 1988 stating that the acquired lands are situated at Amruthapuram Village of Sabbavaram Mandal and except the land in O.P.114 of 1988, in the remaining land, there was a mango tope and that the said mango trees were originally planted by following the procedure of draft (Antumamidi), which gives high yield of income. At the time of acquisition, some of the mango trees are of 20 years old and other trees are of 10 years old. In respect of mango trees situated in Pisinikada village covered by O.P.No.36 of 1988, the reference Court granted compensation for each tree at Rs.15,000/- and that the lands of Pisinikada and the present acquired lands are of similar fertility and crop yield. Ex.A.2 is the copy of order made in O.P.No.55 of 1988 and batch. They are claiming compensation by applying 33 1/3 years capitalization of net income. Under Ex.A.4-registered sale deed, Ac.0.13 cents of land was sold for Rs.2,000/- and the distance between the acquired land and the land under Exs.A.3 and A.4 is only 200 yards. The lands under Exs.A.5 and A.6 and the lands covered by the present acquisition are of similar fertility and crop. P.W.4, the Assistant Director of Agriculture deposed that the dry lands are more suitable for raising mango gardens and that the climatic conditions in the entire Visakhapatnam District is generally equal and one and the same. He denied the suggestion that there would be difference in the crop yields of mango trees depending on the fertility of soil and water level. Under Exs.A.2, A.5 and A.6, for the mango trees situated in Pisinikada, Boddapadu and Zilledupudi of Visakahpatnam District, the compensation was fixed at Rs.10,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.18,000/-for each mango tree respectively. Taking into consideration of fixation of compensation for each mango tree at Rs.15,000/- in O.P.No.56 of 1988 and batch, the reference Court, in the present case, fixed the market value for each tree at Rs.15,000/-. The evidence adduced by the claimants and from the award, it is clear that approximately 50 mango trees were existing per acre and the same was accepted by the Land Acquisition Officer. In respect of Ac.0.23 cents of land covered by O.P.No.114 of 1988, P.W.2 is the scribe of Ex.A.3-sale deed in respect of Ac.0.12 cents of land that was sold at Rs.1,000/- and P.W.6 is the purchaser of said land. P.Ws.2 and 6 have deposed as to the execution of registered sale deed under Ex.A.3. Further P.W.5 is the vendor of Ex.A.4 sale deed, who deposed that he sold Ac.0.13 cents of land for a consideration of Rs.2,000/- which works out to Rs.15,391/- per acre. Taking into consideration of said evidence, the reference Court fixed the market value for the land of Ac.0.23 cents covered by O.P.No.114 of 1988 at Rs.3,540/-. It is now fairly well settled that the mango garden will yield income for nearly 40 years, which is also evident from Ex.A.1-letter addressed by the Assistant Director of Horticulture Department. In the said letter it is stated that the total economic bearing period is 40 years and the number of trees existing per acre are 50 trees. It also discloses that older plantation is of 25 years and younger plantation is of 10 years and therefore, all the trees will give at least another 15 years economic yield. Therefore, even if 1,000/- is taken as net income per annum from each tree, the fixation of market value for each tree at Rs.15,000/- by the reference Court is a reasonable compensation, which does not call for any interference by this Court as no separate compensation is awarded to the claimants. Further possession of the lands was taken on 17.12.1980 i.e. even prior to the issuance of 4(1) notification and the last such notification was issued on 27.3.1984 by publishing errata notification. For all the three years, the claimants are deprived of the income. Keeping in view of the same, the market value fixed by the reference Court both for the mango trees and for the land of Ac.0.23 cents in O.P.No.114 of 1988 has to be sustained. We accordingly dismiss the appeals confirming the market value as fixed by the reference Court. It is needless to say that the claimants are entitled to additional market value from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to the date of passing of the award at 12 per cent under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and 30 per cent solatium on the compensation amount and interest at 9 per cent per annum on the compensation from the date of notification for a period of one year from 30.3.1981 and thereafter at 15 per cent per annum as per the law declared by the Apex Court in Sunder v. Union of India[4]. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ SEPTEMBER 08, 2011 B.N.RAO NALLA, J. Tsr. [1] AIR 1973 SC 2463 [2] AIR 1983 SC 1190 [3] (2000) 6 SCC 326 [4] AIR 2001 SC 3516