IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S. No.1951 of 1993 & CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.57751 of 1993 A.S. No.1951 of 1993 Between: Special Deputy Collector (L.A. & Reh.) Srisailam Project, Kurnool ..... APPELLANT AND Kasireddy Ramireddy .....RESPONDENT Cross Objections (SR) No.57751 of 1993 Between: Kasireddy Rami Reddy ..... CROSS OBJECTOR/RESPONDENT AND Special Deputy Collector (L.A.& Reh.) Srisailam Project, Kurnool .....RESPONDENT/APPELLANT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S. No.1951 of 1993 & CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.57751 of 1993 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The appeal is filed by the Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Srisailam Project, Kurnool. The claimant filed cross objections. The claimant who is the sole respondent in the appeal died and his legal representatives are brought on record. 2. Pursuant to the notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, published on 24.12.1984, an extent of Ac.0.54 cents in Sy.No.72/2B situated at Kambalapalle village, Pamulapadu Mandal, Kurnool District was acquired for the purpose of excavation of Srisailam Right Bank Canal (SRBC) along with other lands, totaling Ac.159.55 cents. The Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.12/85 dated 20.09.1985 determining the compensation @Rs.15,000/- per acre per annum. 3. The respondent/claimant sought for a reference under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation and accordingly, the Advocate for the claimant filed a petition before the Land Acquisition Officer on receipt of the Award No.12/85 dated 20.09.1985 seeking compensation for the acquired land of an extent of Ac.0.54 cents @Rs.50,000/- per acre. On reference, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.80,000/- per acre per year and for three years Rs.2,40,000/-. 4. A perusal of the award proceedings, it discloses that the claimant made a statement before the award proceedings seeking compensation in respect of Ac.0.54 cents only. However, for the first time in the claim statement, it is stated that Ac.0.54 cents of betel leaf garden in Sy.No.72/2B was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer and the said Ac.0.54 cents was severed from total extent of Ac.2.70 cents of betel leaf garden, and after acquisition of Ac.0.54 cents, the remaining betel leaf garden of Ac.2.16 cents automatically fell down due to removal of the plants protecting the betel leaf garden from wind and also due to removal of earth, dust and stones thrown on the acquired land. It is stated that the claimant incurred loss of existing betel leaf garden crop in the remaining garden. The claimant claimed compensation @ Rs.1,20,000/- per acre on the basis of the capitalization method taking into account the yield of three years. 5. In support of the claim of the claimant, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked and on behalf of Land Acquisition Officer, RW 1 was examined and the copy of the award was marked as Ex.B1. 6. PW 1 is the claimant. He stated that an extent of Ac.0.54 cents out of Ac.2.70 cents of betel leaf garden was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer. On the date of acquisition, the age of the betel leaf garden was three years and he used to get income of Rs.1,20,000/- per year after deducting the expenditure from the net income. He stated that the remaining part of Ac.2.16 cents of betel leaf garden was damaged due to digging channel and throwing the stones and dust thereon and hence he claimed compensation for the remaining land of Ac.2.16 cents. In chief examination though he stated that he used to get income of Rs.1,20,000/- after deducting the expenses from the net income, but he did not specifically state about the damages caused to the remaining land. In the cross examination, he admitted that no notice was issued to the Land Acquisition Officer for the damage caused to the remaining betel leaf garden. He denied the suggestion that Exs.A1 to A3 were manipulated in order to show the existence of betel leaf garden. 7. PW 2 who is resident of Kurnool stated that he came from Iskala village and settled in Kurnool. He stated that the claimant raised the betel leaf garden and sold the leaves to him and he saw the garden of the claimant. The claimant used to get Rs.45,000/- income on the betel leaf garden. In the cross examination he stated that he left the village Iskala about 40 years back and he has no land or other property in Iskala and he was getting betel leaves from others for doing business and he had no documentary evidence to show that he was doing business in betel leaves. The claimant was Sarpanch of Iskala village. 8. PW 3 is the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Ananthapur & Kurnool Divisions. He was examined for the purpose of establishing the income on the betel leaf garden. He stated that he has no occasion to visit the said village. The betel leaves at any place can be cut upto five years if the garden is in good condition. He stated that an average agriculturist would get minimum income of Rs.20,000/- per acre per year and maximum income of Rs.60,000/- to Rs.80,000/- per acre per year. They have to spend Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per year towards maintenance and transportation. He stated that if part of Ac.0.54 cents betel leaves are cut, the remaining part of about Ac.0.50 cents would be affected completely. He admitted that he did not visit the garden and he has no personal knowledge about the garden of the claimant. 9. PW 4 is resident of Iskala where the claimant is residing. He stated that by the time of acquisition there was a betel leaf garden in the acquired land of Ac.0.54 cents. He was working at that time by spreading earth from the canal. The canal was dug at a depth of 20 feet, and width of the canal is 100 yards. While loading and unloading the stones and earth from the canal into tippers, dust would be formed and would be covered entirely on the betel leaf garden. In the cross examination, he stated that the claimant was having Ac.20.00 of land in the village and the betel leaf garden is Ac.2.70 cents. He is having one acre of land and used to attend the agricultural labour work and he worked for about one month in the land of the claimant. He stated that he did not know the names of the adjacent owners. He stated that the entire betel leaf garden was damaged. 10. RW 1 Special Deputy Collector, SRBC, Nandyal stated that the Government acquired Ac.0.54 cents of land of the claimant situated in Sy.No.72/2B of Kambalapalli for the purpose of digging SRBC main canal. By the time of acquisition there was betel leaf garden in the acquired land and the value of the betel leaf garden was fixed by his predecessor basing on the report of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Kurnool who gave a report stating that the value of the betel leaf garden was Rs.15,000/- per acre. No compensation separately was awarded exclusively for the land occupied for the betel leaf garden. Compensation fixed for the betel leaf garden was @ Rs.15,000/- per acre per annum. In the cross examination he stated that he had no occasion to visit the acquired land. 11. The questions that arise for consideration in this case are; (1) Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for the remaining betel leaf garden of Ac.2.16 cents which was not acquired apart from Ac.0.54 cents of betel leaf garden which is only acquired; and (2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation as awarded by the Reference Court @ Rs.80,000/- per acre per annum for the period of three years. 12. We have perused the records. As per the award passed by the Special Deputy Collector and Sec. 4(1) notification what was acquired is only Ac.0.54 cents of betel leaf garden, and the Land Acquisition Officer based on the report of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Kurnool vide his letter in R.C.No.1124/85, dated 02.05.1985 who assessed the damages @ Rs.15,000/- per acre per year, awarded compensation and fixed the capital value of the betel leaf garden @ Rs.15,000/- per acre per year for three years. The petitioner has not sought any reference claiming damages for the remaining land of Ac.2.16 cents in his application filed before the Land Acquisition Officer. 13. Under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act any person interested who has not accepted the award is entitled to make an application before the Collector requiring that the matter be referred for determination of the Court with regard to the objection as to the measurement of the land and the amount of compensation payable to him, specifying the grounds. In the instant case, the ground mentioned is only with regard to enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, but not anything about the damages for the abetting betel leaf garden alleged to have been affected. Therefore, any consideration in determining compensation shall be with regard to the reference only. If the matter has been referred with regard to quantum of the compensation alone for the acquired betel leaf garden of Ac.0.54 cents, the matter requires to be considered for determination of compensation by the Reference Court according to the market value of the land by the date of publication of Sec.4(1) notification, damages if any sustained by reason of taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of taking possession and the damages sustained by reason of acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable. We are of the opinion that under Sec.23 of the Act unless the so called damages to the neighbouring property is one of the subject matter of the reference/protection application, the Reference Court cannot go beyond the scope of the reference. Therefore, it is not open to the claimant to claim the damages for the first time in the Reference Court in respect of the neighbouring property or other property. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner/claimant is not entitled for any damages said to have been caused to the remaining land of Ac.2.16 cents of the betel leaf garden which is not subject matter or reference. Even otherwise, except the self-saying oral statement of the PWs 1 to 4, there is no other evidence on record to show that the neighbouring betel leaf garden was damaged or affected. Admittedly, PW 3 the Assistant Director of Agriculture who was examined on behalf of the claimant with regard to the damages claimed by the claimant stated that he never visited the garden of the claimant and he has no knowledge about the garden of the claimant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the claimant is not entitled to any damages for the other land except Ac.0.54 cents of the acquired land. 14. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Land Acquisition Officer basing on the report of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Kurnool vide his letter in R.C.No.1124/85 dated 02.05.1985 who stated that the age of the betel leaf garden is three years and the said betel leaf garden can give economic yield for three more years and its annual income is Rs.15,000/- per acre, fixed the compensation @Rs.15,000/- per acre per annum. PW 3 stated that the average income of the agriculturist would be Rs.20,000/- per acre per year and the maximum income would be Rs.60,000/- to Rs.80,000/- per acre per year, if they spent Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- towards maintenance and transportation. Admittedly, PW 3 had no occasion to visit the betel leaf garden of the claimant and he has no knowledge about the garden of the claimant, and therefore, his evidence with regard to average agricultural income can be taken into account as Rs.20,000/- per acre per year. 15. Even according to the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the age of the betel leaf garden was three years and further the garden can give economic yield for three more years and the garden was well maintained and vines are in good vigor free from pests or diseases. PW 1 stated that he used to spend Rs.15,000/- per annum on the betel leaf garden towards maintenance. We are of the opinion that even according to the award proceedings as the betel leaf garden is well maintained the average yield of the betel leaf garden can be taken into account @Rs.25,000/- per acre. Accordingly, we fix the capitalization value of the betel leaf garden @ Rs.25,000/- per acre per year for three years. 16. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part as against the reliefs granted by the Reference Court under clause (a) and (b) of the result portion of the impugned order. We are not inclined to interfere with the reliefs granted by the Reference Court under clauses-(c), (d), (e) and (f) of the result portion of the impugned order. 17. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the extent indicated above, and the cross objections are dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J _________________ NOUSHAD ALI,J Dated: 18.08.2010 Dsr