IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO APPEAL SUIT No.767 OF 2002 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, Peddapuram. … Petitioner And Pyala Tata Rao. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO APPEAL SUIT No.767 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “the Act”) is preferred by the Special Deputy Collector-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Peddapuram aggrieved by the order, dated 16.10.2001 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram in O.P.No.37 of 1993. Draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, acquiring various extents of Ac.0-57 cents in survey No.72/2B, Ac.0-12 cents in survey No.72/2D and Ac.0-30 cents in survey No.72/5D, in all measuring Ac.0-99 cents, of claimant in S.Thimmapuram village was published in the A.P.Gazette on 16.10.1989, due to sub-mergence of the lands in the Yeleru Reservoir Project. Possession of the land was taken on 20.10.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer after obtaining 37 sale statistics, which took place during the crucial period of three years, fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.22,500/- per acre by his Award No.4/92, dated 20.10.1992, apart from separate compensation for the fruit bearing trees and the additional structural values as estimated by the Executive Engineer, S.I.Division and the statutory benefits i.e., 30% Solatium and 12% additional market value. Claimant having not satisfied with the fixation of the market value sought for reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the compensation. On such reference being made to the civil court, claimant filed a detailed claim statement stating that the lands are wet lands and by raising commercial crops like Banana, Sugarcane, Paddy and Tobacco etc., in the land, he used to get income of Rs.10,000/- per acre. There are 11 mango trees and each worth about Rs.15,000/-. The cashew nut trees were not valued by the Land Acquisition Officer and he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,000/- and requested the court to enhance the compensation suitably. The Land Acquisition Officer filed a rebuttal rejoinder to the claim statement in support of the award. As the entire burden rests upon the claimant to prove the market value, the claimant examined himself as R.W.1 and one more witness as R.W.2 and marked Ex.R1-certified copy of judgment and decree in O.P.No.286 of 1990, dated 08.12.1999. No evidence was let in by the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimant, who was examined as R.W.1, stated that he used to raise Paddy, Sugarcane, Banana in the acquired lands by using the Yeleru river waters and used to get Rs.6,000/- by raising Paddy, Rs.15,000/- by raising Sugarcane and Rs.20,000/- by raising Plantain crops per acre. There are two mango trees aged about 20 years of Banginapalli, Rasalu and Suvarnarekha varieties and used to get income of Rs.10,000/- from the mango trees. R.W.2, who is also a resident of S.Thimmapuram village, deposed that S.Thimmapuram and Srungarayanipalem villages are adjacent to each other and the Government also acquired lands belonged to him in Srungarayanipalem village in survey No.56/1B for the purpose of laying Yeleru channel and for the said lands, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value and when they objected to the said market value, the matter was referred to the civil court in O.P.No.286 of 1990 and after full enquiry, the civil Court fixed the market value for the land acquired therein at Rs.60,000/- per acre, which is marked as Ex.R1. In the lands covered by O.P.No.286 of 1990 and also lands under acquisition, they used to raise Paddy, Sugarcane and Plantain crops. The Land Acquisition Officer has also taken into consideration the sale statistics, but no rebuttal evidence has been adduced by him that the lands under acquisition and the lands acquired under O.P.No.286 of 1990 are not situated side by side and are of same fertility and used to raise the same pattern of crops, nor any evidence has been let in that against the judgment in O.P.No.286 of 1990 any appeal was preferred, compensation was reduced suitably by any Court. In the absence of the same, the trial court rightly taken the same into consideration and arrived the market value of the acquired land at Rs.60,000/- per acre. We see no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal suit is dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 10th June 2010 lmv