IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. G. SHANKAR A.S.No.535 of 1998 Between: K. Yemma Reddy .. Appellant AND The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, SRSP, Pochampad .. Respondent JUDGMENT: (Per. G. Bhavani Prasad, J) The appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.281 of 1990 dated 29-3-1995 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Ac.588.16 guntas of Patta land in Maggidi village were acquired to provide for submergence under Sreeram Sagar Project and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation of Rs.3,000/- for DSW lands, Rs.2,480/- for SCW lands, Rs.500/- for dry lands, Rs.2,160/- for WSC lands and the appellant herein is the owner of Ac.15-10 guntas in Sy.Nos.17, 71 and 74, which were also acquired. On the directions of the High Court in W.P.No.9349 of 1982 dated 12-1-1985, the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference to the Civil Court in respect of said lands under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Claimants 2 to 14 impleaded themselves as per orders in I.A.No.1333 of 1990 in the same reference. The claimants stated that the then prevailing market value of the lands was Rs.20,000/- for DCW lands, Rs.15,000/- for SCW lands and Rs.10,000/- for dry lands. Even the other lands were costing Rs.5,000/- for dry BC land and Rs.3,500/- per acre for dry chalka land. The annual income was also significant and the claimant, hence, sought for enhancement of the compensation. The appellant in particular claimed that his land was yielding an annual income of Rs.5,000/- and had trees worth Rs.3,000/- each, the lands being not less than Rs.7,000/- per acre in value. The Reference Court examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7 and Ex.B.1 during the enquiry and rendered the impugned award considering the questions of the then prevailing market value and the entitlement of the claimants 2 to 14 to any relief herein. The Reference Court in the impugned award considered that the claim of the claimants 2 to 14 for enhancement is outside the scope of the Reference Court and subject to their right, if any, under Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimants 2 to 14 were not entitled to any relief from the Civil Court. The Reference Court then referred to the evidence of the 1st claimant-PW.1 about his lands in Sy.Nos.17, 71 and 74 having 80 mango trees and 135 tamarind trees and his raising crops like maize, turmeric, garlic, chillies etc., in the lands earning an annual income of Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per acre. The Reference Court also referred to his evidence about the value of and income from the trees and his reliance on Ex.A.7-Judgment in O.P.No.265 of 1984 relating to acquisition of lands in the same village. The Reference Court also noted that the Patwari of the village as PW.2 stated PW.1 to be owning land in S.Nos.17, 71 and 74 and the land in S.No.17 to be SCW land, whereas the land in Sy.Nos.71 and 74 to be registered as dry land, but irrigated through tank water as shown in Exs.A.1 to A.6-Pahanies. The Reference Court relied on Ex.A.7-Judgment as even the Land Acquisition Officer could not gather any sales statistics and took note of the Land Acquisition Officer working out the value of the trees in Sy.Nos.71 and 74 while awarding compensation. It considered the appellant herein to be entitled to Rs.4,500/- per acre for the land in Sy.No.17 and Rs.2,500/- per acre for dry lands in Sy.Nos.71 and 74 as per Ex.A.7-Judgment and enhanced the market value accordingly, while fixing the value of the trees also at the rates adopted by Ex.A.7. The Reference Court also recorded the entitlement of the appellant to the consequential statutory benefits. The appellant-claimant herein contended that the land in Sy.No.71 to an extent of Ac.13.11 guntas was cultivated as Bagayat land, which was shown as such in the Pahanies from 1965-66 to 1970-71 in Exs.A.1 to A.6. Compensation ought to have been awarded at Rs.6,750/- per acre as awarded to the other lands in the same village and Ex.A.7-Judgment should have been adopted in respect of this land in such a manner and hence, the appeal. Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the appellant- claimant and Sri S.M.D. Haneef, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals are heard. The point for consideration is as to what was the probablised prevailing market rate at the relevant time in respect of Ac.13.11 guntas in Sy.No.71. It should be first noted that the lands of the appellant in Sy.Nos.17 and 74, which were also the subject of acquisition and the subject of the impugned order, are not the subject matter of this appeal. The consideration of this appeal is confined only to an extent of Ac.13.11 guntas in Sy.No.71 of Maggidi village of old Armoor Taluk, Nizamabad. The value granted by the Reference Court under the impugned award in respect of tamarind and mango trees located in Sy.Nos.17, 71 and 74 is also not the subject matter of the present consideration. Coming to the probable prevailing market value of the land at the time of notification for acquisition, the Reference Court took Ex.A.7-Judgment in O.P.No.265 of 1984 on the file of the Additional District Judge’s Court, Nizamabad, as the basis in the absence of any sales statistics provided by either party and in the light of the acquisition for the same purpose in the same village being near in point of time and further being in respect of comparable lands. The adoption of Ex.A.7 as the basis at the arriving market value also cannot be seriously in dispute. However, the Reference Court took the land in Sy.No.71 as a dry land as classified in the revenue records on the ground that compensation was being granted for the trees located in the said land. However, the appellant as PW.1 stated on oath about his raising crops like maize, turmeric, garlic, chillies etc., in this land and the other two lands notwithstanding the existence of the trees therein and his earning Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per annum per acre from such crops was not contradicted by any evidence for the Referring Officer. While an element of exaggeration with the aim of getting higher compensation maybe a natural phenomenon, the evidence of the Patwari of the village as PW.2 is about the land registered as dry being irrigated through tank water. PW.2 was not alleged or shown to be having such interest in the appellant as to resort to falsehood and he specifically denied the dry land having no sources of supply of tank water. If the land though registered as dry was being irrigated through tank water, it could have been considered to be answering the description of at least a dry land cultivated as a single crop wet land, if not considered as a dry land cultivated as Bagayat land. Taking into account that there are significant number of tamarind and mango trees located in the land, making a significant extent of the acquired land unavailable for the cultivation of other crops, adopting the value of dry land cultivated as a single crop wet land may be reasonable and in the absence of any sales statistics or other dependable material, an element of guess and estimate becomes inevitable in adopting the value of the land as in Ex.A.7 Judgment to the land in Sy.No.71. Taking an overall view of the evidence on record, it appears just and reasonable to fix the market value of the land in Sy.No.71 at Rs.4,500/- per acre, based on the uncontroverted claims of PWs.1 and 2 without interfering with the value of the trees granted by the impugned award. If the value of the trees were to be taken into account, the compensation so fixed will not be considerably less than the compensation fixed for Bagayat land in Ex.A.7. The amount has to be modified accordingly, while of course making the appellant entitled to the consequential statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation. Therefore, the award, dated 29-3-1995 in O.P.No.281 of 1990 on the file of the Additional District Judge’s Court, Nizamabad, is modified by enhancing the compensation payable in respect of Ac.13.11 guntas of Sy.No.71 of Maggidi village in the erstwhile Armoor Taluk of Nizamabad District to Rs.4,500/- per acre with all consequential statutory benefits as originally granted by the impugned award on the compensation awarded by it being extended to the enhanced compensation also. The appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J ________________ K. G. SHANKAR, J Date: 30-12-2010 Ksn