THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.Nos.3964 and 3972 of 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Since these appeals arise out of a common order, dated 27-03-1995, passed in O.P.Nos.123 and 125 of 1988 respectively on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chodavaram, the same are heard and taken up together for disposal by way of common judgment. These two appeals are filed by the Land Acquisition Officer against the common judgment and decree passed in O.P.Nos.123 and 125 of 1988 respectively, dated 27-03-1995. The subject matter of these appeals relates to acquisition of various dry and wet lands situated at Yendapalli village, Kotauratla Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, pursuant to 4(1) Notification, and passing of Award No.10/1983, dated 09-02-1983, by the Land Acquisition Officer, fixing the market value @ Rs.3,061/- per acre for dry land and Rs.3,030/- per acre for wet land. As against the said award No.10/83, dated 09-02-1983, various claimants have filed claim petitions, which were numbered as O.P.Nos.114 of 1988 and 116 of 1988 to 128 of 1988 respectively and the Reference Court by order, dated 27-03-1995, fixed the market value @ Rs.60,000/- per acre and also granted additional compensation for large number of trees. It is stated that against the common order in O.P.Nos.114, 126 and 128 of 1988 respectively, the Land Acquisition Officer filed A.S.No.s.63 of 1999, 70 of 1999 and 3935 of 2000 before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 27-09-2002, allowed the appeals setting aside the award passed by the Reference Court and confirming the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, dated 09-02-1983, by observing as follows:- “…… The Division Bench of this Court also found fault with the order of the reference court granting compensation for trees on the basis of the self-serving testimony of one of the claimants in respect of all claims even without any evidence in respect of other lands in question. The court below persuaded itself into a serious error in blindly accepting the self-serving testimony of the claimants- PWs.1 and 2, both as regards the income from the lands as well as the number and value of the trees” “…… It is too well settled that the burden is on the claimants to make out a case for higher compensation and that ineffective presentation, cross-examination or failure to let in rebuttal evidence cannot ipso facto enable a reference court to award compensation implicitly relying on the averments in the claim statements or on self-serving oral testimony – Special Deputy Collector Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao (AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2627) M.V.K.Gundu Rao Vs. R.D.O., Narasaraopet (1996) 3 SCC 129, P.Ram Reddy Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (1995) 2 SCC 305 and Special Deputy Collector Vs. P.Venkataramana (1999 (2) ALD 115)..…” “…… We conclude that the enhanced compensation granted by the court below is wholly unsustainable and is accordingly set aside.” It is brought to our notice by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that the same learned Subordinate Judge in respect of the similar award in O.P.Nos.11 and 92 of 1983 enhanced the compensation from Rs.3,030/- to Rs.10,000/- per acre for the land alone declining to award any compensation for the trees. Thus, it is contended that the fraud committed in passing the impugned award by the learned Subordinate Judge is a classic example, as the same learned Subordinate Judge for similarly situated lands acquired for the same purpose declined to award any compensation for the trees agreeing the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and in respect of the land also meagre enhancement was made from Rs.3,030/- to Rs.10,000/- per acre, whereas, in the instant case awarded separate compensation for trees which are not at all established and proved before the Land Acquisition Officer. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in KOLUSU RAJA RAO AND OTHERS Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR in Special Leave Appeal (Civil) Nos.15220- 15223/2000, dated 19-04-2002, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:- “….. If there was no satisfactory material, the High Court ought to have set aside the order under appeal before it and remitted the matter to the Reference Court for fresh consideration rather than merely confirming the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer. In these circumstances, we set aside the order made by the High Court and remit the matter to the Reference Court for fresh consideration after notice to all the parties…..” We are of the opinion that the facts of the aforesaid case have no application to the instant case, as in the instant case the Division Bench of this Court, after following various judgments of the Supreme Court held that the claimants have not established their claim before the Reference Court for enhancement of the compensation. Therefore, we are not persuaded to take a different view from that of the view already taken by the Division Bench of this Court in A.S.Nos.63 of 1999 and batch, dated 27-09-2002. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in A.S.Nos.63 of 1999 and batch, dated 27-09-2002 setting aside the award passed by the Reference Court in O.P.Nos.123 and 125 of 1988 respectively and confirming the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, dated 09- 02-1983. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J Date: 04-10-2010 Prv