THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.Nos.2393, 2394, 2395, 2396, 2458, 2460, 2461 & 2464 of 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) 1. These appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Special Deputy Collector, Yeleru Left Main Canal, Anakapalli, are directed against the common order dated 3.04.1995 passed in 48 of 1991 and batch on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam District. 2. A.S.No.2393 of 2000 is filed against O.P.No.53 of 1991; A.S.No.2394 of 2000 is filed against O.P.No.65 of 1991; A.S.NO.2395 of 2000 is filed against O.P.No.59 of 1991; A.S.No.2396 of 2000 is filed against O.P.No.64 of 1991; A.S.No.2458 of 2000 is filed against O.P.No.47 of 1991; A.S.No.2460 of 2000 is filed against O.P.No.54 of 1991; A.S.No.2461 of 2000 is filed against O.P.No.51 of 1991; and A.S.No.2464 of 2000 is filed against O.P.No.55 of 1991 respectively. The respondents are the claimants in each appeal. 3. A total extent of Ac.48.36 cents of land along with fruit bearing trees and structures therein belonging to the claimants situated in Jillidipudi Village in Nathavaram Mandal, were acquired by the Government for the purpose of formation of Yeleru Left Main Canal intending to supply water to the Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam, as well as for irrigation purposes, pursuant to the draft notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 11.11.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry, relying on as many as 49 sale transactions passed Award No.1 of 1989 dated 26.04.1989 basing on the previous acquisition of lands in S.Nos.44 and 142 of the same village wherein Award No.9 of 1988 dated 25.05.1988 was passed fixing the market value @ Rs.12,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.16,000/- per acre for irrigated dry lands, fixed the market value of the acquired land under the present notification @ Rs.20,000/- for wet lands and @ Rs.15,000/- for dry lands and also fixed the compensation separately for fruit bearing and other trees. 4. Not satisfied with the fixation of market value, the claimants received the amount under protest and sought to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act to the civil Court. On reference being made the claimants appeared before the reference Court and filed their claim statements claiming compensation for the acquired lands as well as trees and structures alleged to have been acquired, which were not claimed or shown in the award. 5. It is stated that the reference Court relied on Ex.X.1- agreement of sale executed by Adapureddy Sankarayya in favour of Rajana Ramulu showing the sale price @ Rs.15,000/- per acre; and Ex.X.2-certified copy of sale deed executed by Adapureddy Sankarayya in favour of Rajana Ramulu for a consideration of @ Rs.9,600/- per acre. But the reference Court has not taken the actual sale consideration reflected in Ex.X.2, but took the consideration reflected under the agreement of sale. In so far as trees are concerned, the trees were not established in the award proceedings and there was no claim or objection by the claimants before the award enquiry, but the trees have been shown in the claim petitions claiming compensation for the first time and the same has been accepted by the reference Court without any basis. 6. The learned Government Pleader submits that as against the same common order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated 3.04.1995, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred A.S.Nos.2463 and 2457 of 2000 against O.P.Nos.48 of 1991 and 52 of 1991 and other appeals in A.S.Nos.2456, 2462 and 3934 of 2000 against some other O.Ps., and a Division Bench of this Court by common order dated 27.09.2002 allowed the said appeals. Thus it is stated that the subject matter of these appeals are squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 27.09.2002 in A.S.Nos.2456, 2457, 2462, 2463 and 3934 of 2000. 7. The learned Government Pleader further submits that against the same order of the learned Subordinate Judge in O.P.Nos.302 of 2008 and batch dated 5.09.1994, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred A.S.Nos.2804 of 1999 and batch and a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 27.09.2002 allowed the appeals confirming the award of the Land Acquisition Officer while setting aside the orders of the reference Court. It is also stated that against the same batch of cases and the same learned Subordinate Judge, in O.P.Nos.153 of 1989 and batch dated 20.04.1995, A.S.Nos.3903 of 2000 and batch were preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer and a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 27.09.2002 allowed the said appeals. It is stated that in A.S.Nos.3903 of 2002 the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was dated 5.11.1988 whereas in the instant cases the award was passed on 26.04.1989 and the facts in the said case are similar to the facts in these cases and therefore, these appeals are also to be allowed. 8. The learned Government Pleader further brought to our notice that this Court allowed the appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer in A.S.Nos.3964 and 3972 of 2000 by order dated 04.10.2010 following the earlier order of the Division Bench of this Court in A.S.Nos.63 & 70 of 1999 and 3935 of 2000 dated 27.09.2002. The Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment observed as under – “… 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 to 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 implicit 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.” 9. In view of the fact that the aforesaid contentions of the learned Government Pleader for appeals have not been controverted by any of the counsel, we allow the appeals. Consequently, the impugned orders of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chodavaram are set aside. The respective claimants are entitled to compensation and other benefits as mentioned in Award No.1/1989 dated 26.04.1989 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer-Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Yeleru Left Main Canal, Anakapalli. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J. ______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 27th October, 2010 Js.