THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.1884 OF 2001 AND LAAS NO.79 OF 2010 Dated. -12-2010 Between: G.Satyanarayana Reddy .…Appellant/Respondent Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Peddapuram ....Respondent/appellant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.1884 OF 2001 AND LAAS NO.79 OF 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) A.S.No.1884 of 2001 and Cross Appeal (LAAS) No.79 of 2010 arise out of the award in O.P.No.2 of 1993 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram filed by the claimant and Land Acquisition Officer respectively. An extent of Ac.5.90 cents of land was acquired for Bhavavaram tank and possession was taken on 01-04-1984 and an award was passed on 25-10-1991 and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.11,000/- per acre and on the objections made by the claimant the matter was referred to the civil court. The claimant contended that the market value given by the Land Acquisition Officer is too low and there was no separate value for the trees. The acquired land is very costly land located in the heart of white burley tobacco belt. The claimant used to get income of Rs.16,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre and there was a well costing Rs.1,50,000/- apart from it there are 52 palmyrah trees in Sy.No.34/1 and 23 palmyrah trees in Sy.No.36/1 and each tree value is Rs.1,000/-. The trees are aged about “20”. Accordingly, the claimant claimed the compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer filed rejoinder denying the allegations of the claimant. On behalf of the claimant he was examined as RW.1 and marked Exs.R-1 to R-4. After considering the material on record, the lower court has fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.40,000/- per acre and rejected other claims for trees and bore well. The statutory benefits were also granted. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has preferred Appeal being LAAS No.79 of 2010 questioning the enhancement and the claimant has filed the appeal being AS No.1884 of 2001 claiming further enhancement at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre and further contending that the value of the trees are not taken into consideration. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the market value fixed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is real and sustainable? (2) Whether the claimant is entitled for any enhancement? (3) Whether the award passed by the lower court suffers from any infirmity calling for interference? (4) To what relief? POINTS:- Since this being a reference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act,1894 ( for short “the Act”) at the instance of the claimant, the burden is on the claimant to prove the value of the land, the existence of the trees, wells and separate entitlement of the values of the latter. In support of his claim, PW.1 himself was examined and he reiterated his contentions in the claim statement about the fertility, income and relied upon the Ex.R-1 for the Fasli 1399 corresponding to the year 1989. The lower court in para.7 of its judgment found that the possession was taken in 1984 and Ex.R-1 relates to 1989 and therefore, it cannot be looked into. It also found that no record is placed before the court that the land was irrigated with bore water. The lower court also found that no sale deed is filed to prove the value of the acquired land. There was also an attack on the Land Acquisition Officer and it was sought to be canvassed that as bribe was not given proper valuation was not fixed and reliance is placed on Ex.R-3. Reliance is also placed on Ex.R-4 with regard to value of the acquired lands being Rs.15,000/- per acre as on 16-10-1989. It was submitted before the lower court that the High Court for the lands acquired in Marriveedu, Ramanayyapeta, Lakkavaram and J.Annavaram which were similar to the lands under acquisition the market value was fixed at Rs.50,000/- per acre for wet land and at Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry land and at Rs.25,000/- for grazing lands. The judgment was delivered in AS No.2052 of 1998 and batch dated 11-10-1999. The lower court also took into consideration that for some of the acquired lands in Bhavavaram village for the same purpose, an award was passed for Rs.40,000/- per acre by the same court treating all of them as dry lands. Therefore, the lower court rightly relied upon the above facts when there is no other evidence to support the claim of the claimant and granted the compensation. There is no serious dispute about the fact that the lands of the neighbourhood villages and the lands under acquisition are similar in nature. There is not of much material to come to a different conclusion and the lower court has granted a reasonable enhancement. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals is also not able to show as to how the relevancy of the market value fixed by the court for the same purpose in the earlier O.P is to be ignored and the quality of the lands in the neighbouring villages and the compensation as fixed by the High Court has to be ignored. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts, we hold that there are no grounds to interfere with the enhancement of compensation of Rs.40,000/- fixed by the lower court. Sofar as the valuation for the trees and well are concerned, though the award is said to be silent, the lower court relying on II Adangal and a certificate submitted by the M.R.O to the R.D.O dated 28-04-1999 which shows the existence of the palmyrah trees. It does not show the existence of the well. Accordingly, the lower court accepted the existence of the trees. Evidently, the said certificate (Ex.R-2) was given in 1990 long after the notification and taking of the possession by the Government. Such certificate is not relevant. However, the lower court took into consideration that even if those trees exist, they are very of tender growth and small plants and the claimant is not entitled for any compensation. Evidently, the law is now fairly settled that there cannot be any separate compensation to be paid for the trees. It is useful to refer to a decision reported in State of Haryana Vs. Gurcharan Singh ([1]) which followed in Spl/Dy.Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) Anakapalli Vs. P.Venkata Ramana([2]) . On the analysis above, the appeal and cross-appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the points answered. Therefore, Appeal Suit (AS NO.1884 of 2001) and Cross Appeal i.e., LAAS 79 of 2010 are dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 08-12-2010 TSNR [1] AIR 1996 SC 106 [2] 1999 (2) ALD 115 (D.B)