THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5687 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 23.09.2008 in O.P.No.198 of 2005 on the file of the District Judge, Krishna, at Machilipatnam, wherein the said petition filed under Section 10(2) of Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (in short, the Act) claiming compensation for the loss of 150 Guava trees at the rate of Rs.1,027 per tree, 1000 Papaya trees at the rate of Rs.50/- per tree and Rs.10,000/- towards damages for fencing and Rs.10,000/- towards restoration and leveling of the land, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of Ac.3-69 cents in R.S.No.186/1B in Kalaturu Village, and that the 1st respondent issued a notification under the Act acquiring Ac.0-80 cents in R.S.No.186/1B for the purpose of laying gas pipeline and thereafter, the 2nd respondent laid the gas pipeline from 25.04.2001 and completed the same in third week of June, 2001. The 1st respondent issued proceedings determining the compensation at Rs.1,27,909/- for an extent of Ac.0-60 cents and Rs.85,027/- for an extent of Ac.0-14 cents and the same was received by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said amounts represent the compensation for the trees that were removed in the acquired area, but did not cover the damage caused to the other trees. The petitioner pleads that he raised various types of trees including fruit bearing trees like Guava trees numbering 150, Papaya trees numbering 1000 and that on account of making trenches and movement of heavy vehicles, the pipelines supplying water to the other trees in the petitioner’s land got damaged, as a result of which, the trees withered due to non- supply of water. 4. The 1st respondent filed a counter disputing the claim and contending that the petitioner was paid 1/10th of the land value and also compensation for 161 Guava trees and 19 Coconut trees, 45 Papaya trees, 4 Jack fruit trees, 4 Drumstick trees, 4 Regi trees and 1 Palmyrah tree which were cut and removed in an extent of Ac.0-74 cents, and the petitioner received the same without any protest. The respondent further contended that there was no damage caused to the pipeline or to the other trees. The 2nd respondent also filed a counter contending that the particulars of the trees that were removed from the acquired land and their value was duly noted in the mediators report furnished to the petitioner and no objection was raised by him at that time and the said report was signed by the petitioner also, admitting the contents thereof, and accordingly, the compensation was paid. 5. During the enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. RW1 was examined on behalf of the respondent and no document was marked. On consideration of evidence available on record, the learned District Judge dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to prove that there was a bore well in existence or there was any water pipeline or that the trees in the rest of the land died for want of water. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision petition. 6. Admittedly, the compensation for the land acquired and the trees that were removed from the said land was paid to the petitioner by the respondents. It is also not disputed that mediators report-Ex.A4 was prepared noting the number and nature of the trees that were removed from the acquired land and also their value and, accordingly the compensation was estimated and paid. The petitioner also signed Ex.A4-mediators report and did not raise any protest nor did he make any claim in respect of any other damage to other trees in the land. As seen from the impugned order, the petitioner has not produced any documentary proof showing the existence of the bore well. As rightly pointed out by the learned District Judge, if any such bore well or water pipeline is in existence, the same demands easy verification and proof by way of documentary evidence, like electricity service connection for the bore well and payment of electricity charges in respect of the same. It is not disputed that an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the subject land and he submitted a report along with a rough sketch after inspecting the land in the presence of both the parties. In the said report also, there is no reference to the existence of any bore well. Even in the work memo filed by the petitioner before the Advocate Commissioner, no request was made to note the existence of any bore well. Similarly, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that there were any pipelines for supply of water and the said pipelines got damaged. As rightly observed by the learned District Judge that, when the existence of bore well itself is not proved, the question of any pipeline emanating from such bore well does not arise. When once the existence of bore well and existence of pipelines from the bore well for supplying water to the trees in the rest of the land other than the acquired land is not established, the question of the trees withering on account of non-supply of water through the said pipelines also does not arise. The petitioner seeks to rely upon the oral evidence of PW2 who is said to be a neighbouring land owner. In the cross examination, PW2 admitted that after laying the gas pipelines, the land was re-delivered to PW1 in August, 2001 and after repairing the land there was passage of water to the other plants and the repair was done two months after handing over of the land. Thus, even according to PW2, there was restoration of water supply to the other plants within two months after the land was handed over to the petitioner by the respondents after completing their work. Even according to the petitioner, the trees are all grown up and fruit bearing, but not tender plants. In the absence of any record to show the existence of bore well and the report of Advocate Commissioner also not disclosing the existence of any bore well or any water pipelines emanating therefrom, the oral evidence of PW2, about the alleged damage to the other plants on account of alleged non-supply of water would not suffice, especially in view of his own admission that the water supply was restored within two months. As per the Commissioners report, there is panta bode in the land of the petitioner which is beyond the gas pipeline laid by the respondents. The learned District Judge observed in the impugned order that the claim of the petitioner that 150 guava trees died for want of watering is a patent lie, and is contrary to the evidence of PW1 and his own representation-Ex.A7, wherein it was stated that the guava trees withered for want of water supply and their revival to crop yielding stage would take three years. In the said representation-Ex.A7, there is no reference to the Papaya trees at all. The claim of the petitioner in the petition is found to be totally inconsistent with what he had claimed in his earlier representation-Ex.A7. The conduct of the petitioner in not making any protest at the appropriate time while receiving the compensation and not raising any objection regarding any other damage as claimed now, improbabilises his contention about the alleged damage to the guava and papaya trees on account of non- supply of water. The petitioner has not deposed anything about the alleged damage to the fencing in his evidence. The learned District Judge, on proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record, has rightly held that the petitioner failed to establish his claim for damages. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 19th October, 2011 KSM