THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR A.S.No.1761 of 1998 and Cross Objections (SR) No.22736 of 1999 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) Questioning the enhancement of compensation made by the Senior Civil Judge, Razole in O.P.No.18 of 1994, dated 11.02.1998, the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (O.N.G.C) Rajahmundry, East Godavri District filed the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), whereas seeking further enhancement of compensation, the claimant preferred the Cross Objections. A total extent of Acs.5.71 cents of land (Acs.5.64 cents of patta land, Acs.0.07 cents of poramboke land) comprised in various survey numbers, including an extent of Ac.1.45 cents of land belonging to the claimant situated in Pasarlapudi Lanka Village, Mamidikudur Mandal, East Godavari District, was acquired for producing Oil/Gas well known as Pasarlapudi drill site by O.N.G.C., Krishna-Godavari Project, by issuing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and publishing the same in Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 24.06.1992 followed by draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 06.09.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer, after completing due formalities, passed Award No.13 of 1993, dated 20.02.1993, fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, apart from awarding Rs.3,840/- per each coconut tree. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimant, who received the compensation under protest, sought to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of compensation @ Rs.3,00,000/- per acre with respect to the acquired land in addition to the other benefits. To prove the market value of the acquired land, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.X.1, registered sale deed dated 01.11.1991 was marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. The reference Court, after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. Sri N.Shiva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant contended that the entire land acquired is a coconut garden, nearer to Pasarlapudi Village and the same is having potentiality to be converted into house sites. Therefore, the lower Court has not justified in fixing the market value @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, though the claimant had not filed any sale transaction to substantiate his case. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Appeals contended that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be treated as evidence and that the evidence of R.W.1 cannot be the basis for fixation of the market value, since the claimant failed to establish his case for enhancement of compensation. In view of the above rival submissions, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is what is the true market value for which the claimant is entitled to? The learned counsel for the claimant fairly conceded that except the oral evidence and Ex.X.1-sale deed, there is no other evidence to emphasize that the land acquired is covered by coconut garden. It is well settled that the burden of proof is on the claimant for claiming higher compensation in respect of the acquired land. The claimant, who was examined himself as P.W.1, deposed that prior to the acquisition, the land in question was taken on lease by O.N.G.C and they used to pay rent @ Rs.3,000/- per year per acre treating it as dry land. He also deposed that the height of the land has to be raised to convert the wet land to dry land, for which the earth of 2000 tractors load is required; that by the date of acquisition, the cost of dry land per acre in the area where the acquired land is located, was about Rs.5,00,000/-; and that the acquired land is located adjacent to the Panhayat road in the village with all irrigation and drainage facilities. He also deposed that during the award enquiry, he stated that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre may be paid as compensation for the acquired land; that there are houses around the acquired land; that Coir industry is located at a distance of about ½ K.m from the acquired land; that their land can be used for construction of factories also; and that their village is known for coconut business. He further deposed that by the date of acquisition, the cost of paddy field per acre in the area where the acquired land is located was Rs.1,50,000/-, the cost of coconut garden was Rs.4,00,000/-, and the cost of the land, which was converted into dry land by raising the level so as to use it as house sites, was Rs.10,00,000/-. In the cross-examination, he deposed that compensation was paid separately for coconut trees; that the road running from Pasarlapudi to Lanka is located at a distance of about 3½ K.M. and the said road ends at Lanka only as Godavari River is there after that; that there are paddy fields near the acquired lands; that the land, which was taken as basis by the Land Acquisition Officer to fix the compensation, is located at a distance of ½ k.m from the acquired land and the land of one G.Seethamahalakshmi; and that the acquired lands are used to be fed by the same irrigation canal; that the lands acquired are located adjacent to panchayat road on west; that O.N.G.C. formed a separate road through the land in question after acquisition; that there are no sale transactions went on during the relevant period to prove the rate claimed by him; that he got 2000 tractors load of earth to raise the level of one acre of land by purchasing the earth from the ryots; and that an amount of Rs.1,360/- per one coconut tree was given towards compensation.. From the above evidence, it is clear that there are no sale transactions and P.W.1 himself admitted that the value of wet land was @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre at the time of acquisition. P.W.2 deposed that the cost of coconut garden in the area, where the acquired land is situated, was @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. Whereas, P.W.3 deposed that the cost of coconut garden during the relevant period was Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. So the claimant could not establish the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.3,00,000/- per acre, as claimed by him, as on the date of acquisition. Whereas, under Ex.X.1-sale deed an extent of Acs.0.67 cents of land situated in Pasarlapudi lanka was sold for Rs.50,300/-, which works out to Rs.75,000/- per acre. R.W.1, who is the Senior Assistant in the Office of the Special Deputy Collector, in his cross examination admitted that the acquired land is located nearby Pasarlapudi Village at a distance of 150 yards from the main road and that the acquired land is a coconut garden and the same is useful for house sites. Taking into consideration the above admission, the reference Court fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. No doubt it is true that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not an evidence, but the same can be taken into consideration to know the number of coconut trees standing in the acquired land. In the award, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed separate compensation for 26 yielding coconut trees @ Rs.3,840/- each. Apart from the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for the acquired land, an amount of Rs.53,760/- was awarded towards the value of coconut trees, which shows that there are only 14 coconut trees standing in Acs.1.45 cents of land. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that the land acquired is a coconut garden is contrary to evidence cannot be accepted. Further, in the claim statement filed by the claimant before the reference Court it is nowhere stated number of coconut trees existed but sated that surrounding the acquired land there are coconut trees. In view of the above scanty evidence, and taking into consideration the potentiality of the land acquired, as admitted by R.W.1 that Pasarlapudi Village at a distance of 150 yards from the main road and the acquired land can be converted into house sites and as the claimant himself admitted that the value of the wet land was Rs.1,50,000/- per acre at the time of acquisition, which fact has not been controvertered by the Land Acquisition Officer, we are of the view that the market value of the acquired land can be fixed @ Rs.1,75,000/- per acre instead of Rs.2,00,000/- as awarded by the reference Court. Accordingly, we fix the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,75,000/- per acre, with all statutory benefits. The claimants are entitled to 12% additional market value from the date of 4(1) Notification i.e., 24.06.1992 to the date of taking possession i.e., 22.09.1992 and 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation and interest @9% per annum on the enhanced compensation for a period of one year from 22.09.1992 and thereafter @ 15% per annum. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the order passed by the reference Court to the extent indicated above and the Cross Objections are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J __________________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 13.10.2009 va