THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO A.S.NO.1825 of 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.RAMANA) This Appeal is directed against the order and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, Kurnool District, passed in O.P.No.144 of 1987 dated 18.08.1998. An extent of Ac.0.16 cents of land in Sy.No.569 and an extent of Ac.0.34 cents of land in Sy.No.608 situated in Gorkal village, Panyam village, belonging to the appellant-claimant, were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of formation of Sreesailam Right Bank canal and also for construction of Gorkal Balancing Reservoir. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 28.07.1985 and the possession of the lands were taken on 10.12.1985. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 31.01.1987 fixing the market value of each Mango tree at Rs.1000/- and the lone Coconut tree at Rs.1360/-. However, the Land Acquisition Officer declined to award any value towards the land in question on the ground that it was covered by Mango trees and coconut tree. The Land Acquisition Officer has also awarded 12% additional market value on the tree value and 30% solatium and interest at 9% and 15% per annum, granting a total amount of Rs.23,253/- payable to the claimant. Not satisfied with the said compensation, the claimant sought reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for fixation of the market value of the land and trees and also the structures existing in the acquired lands. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Civil Court. During the enquiry before the reference Court, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the claimant. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer also no oral evidence was adduced, but the copy of the impugned award was marked as Ex.A1 by consent. On a consideration of the entire material available on record, the reference Court confirmed the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the claimant. Learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the market value fixed by the Court below for the Mango trees and the coconut tree is on a lower side and is not in accordance with the principles of law governing the valuation of such trees for compensation. He further submits that under the same notification similarly situate trees were acquired and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed Rs.3,000/- per Mango tree and Rs.1400/- per Coconut tree and that the same value should have been adopted for the Mango and Coconut trees in the present case also. We have perused the order under appeal and the other material on record. It is not in dispute that an extent of Ac.0.16 cents of land in Sy.No.569 and an extent of Ac.0.34 cents of land in Sy.No.608 situated in Gorkal village, Panyam village, belonged to the appellant-claimant, were acquired for the purpose of formation of Sreesailam Right Bank Canal and also for construction of Gorkal Balancing Reservoir. The Land Acquisition Officer as well as the reference Court rightly not awarded any value towards the land in question since it was covered by Mango trees and Coconut tree. As can be seen from the Award, for fixation of the market value of the trees existing in the acquired lands, the Land Acquisition Officer has followed the estimation of trees furnished by the Assistant Director of Horticulture, Anantapur, and fixed the market value of each Mango tree at Rs.1000/- and the only Coconut tree at Rs.1360/- and for fixation of the value of the structure i.e., Sivalayam temple existing in Sy.No.608, the estimate furnished by the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings was followed and a sum of Rs.14,490/- was fixed towards the value of Sivalayam temple. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant- claimant that the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is too low and that the appellant-claimant is entitled more compensation than what was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the reference Court. No documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the appellant- claimant to substantiate his contention. There is no reliable or acceptable evidence available on record with regard to annual income of the fruit bearing trees. We are of the view that there are absolutely no valid grounds nor any contra evidence is placed by the appellant-claimant warranting interference by this Court with the discretion exercised by the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the reference Court in fixing the market value of the trees existing in the acquired lands. We do not find any infirmity in the order under appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA __________________________ JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO 22.06.2011 Gsn