HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY LAAS No.278 of 2005 & Cross-Objections (SR) No.15156 of 2006 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.SEETHAPATHY) This appeal and cross-objections are arise out of the order dated 27.10.2004 in OP No.837 of 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, wherein, the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) was answered by enhancing the market value from Rs.7,000/- per acre to Rs.20,000/- per acre and fixing the compensation for the mulbary crop land at the rate of Rs.65,750/- per acre, besides granting other statutory benefits. 2. Heard the leaned Government Pleader for appeals and the learned counsel for the respondent-cross-objector. Perused the records. 3. An extent of Ac.0.82 cents in Sy.No.556/3 and 556/4 situated Bhanumukkala village of Pamulapadu Mandal, belonging to the respondent was acquired for construction of the Srisailam Right Branch Canal (SRBC) in pursuance of the notification issued on 24.12.1984 under Section 4(1) of the Act. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award No.21/90-91 on 11.07.1991 fixing the market value at Rs.7,000/- per acre in respect of 22 cents of land and Rs.22,750/- per acre in respect of the remaining 60 cents of land, wherein, mulbary crop is raised. Not satisfied with the award, the respondent-claimant sought reference to the Civil Court under Section 18(1) of the Act, claiming compensation at Rs.50,000/- per acre for the mulbary crop land and Rs.30,000/- for the remaining land. According to the claimant, the entire extent of Ac.1.64 cents is cultivated with mulbary crop only. 4. During enquiry before the Reference Court, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and Ex.A.1 CC of order in AS No.2187 of 1998 was marked on his behalf. No oral evidence was adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer, but Ex.B.1 statement of claim dated 25.10.1990 was marked. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the reference Court enhanced the market value from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.20,000/- for 22 cents and the market value from Rs.22,750/- to Rs.65,750/- in respect of 60 cents covered by mulbary crop. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred the present appeal. 5. Admittedly, there is no permanent source of irrigation for the acquired land. The claimant also did not adduce any evidence to show that the land is having assured source of irrigation. It is not disputed that out of total extent of 82 cents, mulbary crop was raised over an extent of 60 cents. Based on the information collected during enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has stated that the mulbary crop yields about 4 or 5 cuttings in a year and for each cutting, the income would be Rs.2,000/- per acre and per year, it would be Rs.8,000/- per acre and for 5 years, the Land Acquisition Officer calculated the value at Rs.40,000/- and pending receipt of the estimates by the Experts Committee, the Land Acquisition Officer felt that it would be appropriate to pay Rs.20,000/- per acre along with 80% of the land compensation. Subsequently, the report of the Sericulture Department was received and the Director of Sericulture opined that the value of the pickings in an acre in a year would be Rs.26,250/-. With the regard to the land, the Land Acquisition Officer, fixed the rate at Rs.7,000/- per acre. Though the claimant contended that the entire extent of Ac.1.64 cents was cultivated with mulbary crop, the award Ex.B.1 shows that only an extent of 20 cents was under cultivation of mulbary crop and rest of the land is dry. The statement of claim Ex.B.1 recorded from the claimant himself also shows that Rs.7,000/- was fixed for the landed property acquired from him, which also supports that mulbary crop was raised only in an extent of Ac.1.20 cents and insofar as the claim is concerned, the extent covered by mulbary crop is only 60 cents. Admittedly, there is no comparable sales statistics based on which the market value for the land can be fixed. Therefore, by adopting the alternative method and going by the expert opinion received from the Director of the Sericulture the market value for the land under mulbary cultivation was fixed. The reference Court has taken the gross value of the mulbary crop at Rs.26,250/- per year per acre and deducted half of the value towards expenses for raising the crop and arrived at net income of Rs.13,150/- and applying the multiplier ‘5’, assessed the land value at Rs.65,750/- per acre. The above method adopted by the reference Court is just and appropriate and the market value arrived at Rs.65,750/- per acre is fair and reasonable. The said market value in respect of an extent of 60 cents under mulbary cultivation is therefore confirmed. 6. Insofar as the remaining extent of 22 cents is concerned, the reference Court enhanced the market value from Rs.7,000/- per acre to Rs.20,000/- per acre. Admittedly, no sales statistics of the lands in the vicinity of the acquired land for the relevant period are made available to form a basis for fixing the market value of the land. It is also not disputed that there is no assured source of irrigation to the said land and the reference Court has therefore treated the said extent of 22 cents as dry land. However, the reference Court enhanced the market value from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre without there being any evidence placed on record justifying such enhancement. The reference Court noted that in several other cases where dry land is acquired, the compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre and the same valuation can be applied in this case. It is, however not disclosed in the impugned order as to whether those lands in the other cases, were in the same village or were similarly placed and on par with the acquired lands. In the absence of any such particulars disclosing the comparable para-meters between the acquired lands and the other lands, enhancement of compensation from Rs.7,000/- per acre to Rs.20,000/- per acre for the acquired land is unsustainable, simply because similar enhancement was made in respect of some other lands situated elsewhere. The claimant has also not produced any evidence to show that the compensation for the lands similarly placed and situated in the vicinity was enhanced and paid at Rs.20,000/- per acre. In the absence of any such evidence and in the absence of any comparable sales statistics, the enhancement of the market value from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre in a subjective manner remains whimsical and therefore cannot be sustained. 7. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, the impugned order insofar as it relates to enhancement of the market value from Rs.7,000/- per acre to Rs.20,000/- per acre in respect of the remaining extent of 22 cents, is therefore held liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 8. For the reasons stated above, the cross-objections filed by the claimant seeking further enhancement are also liable to be rejected and they are accordingly rejected. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part setting aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to enhancement of the market value from Rs.7,000/- per acre to Rs.20,000/- per acre in respect of an extent of 22 cents and confirming the market value in respect of 60 cents mulbary crop land as fixed by the reference Court and also granting statutory benefits thereon. The cross-objections are rejected. No order as to costs. __________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: .01.2011 bss