The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.3587 of 2010 Dated 27th August, 2010 Between: Jakkula Ankanna @ Jakkula Ankalu …Petitioner And Special Deputy Collector (LA) SRBC, Banaganapalli. …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.M.Subba Reddy Counsel for the respondent: --- The Court made the following: Order: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 20-07-2009, in I.A.No.242 of 2009 in O.P.No.36 of 2003, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. On 20-08-2010, this Court ordered Notice Before Admission. Personal service by the petitioner was also permitted. The learned Counsel for the petitioner filed memo in the Registry stating that notice was served on the respondent. Acknowledgment showing receipt of notice by the respondent has also been filed along with the said memo. Despite service of notice, no one represented on behalf of the respondent at the hearing. I have heard Sri M.Subba Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner is claimant in OP.No.36 of 2003 referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The said reference was made on the request of the petitioner for enhancement of compensation for the lands acquired by the respondent under award No.77/01-02, dated 01-03-2002. In his claim statement, the petitioner has inter alia stated that the compensation of Rs.38,000/- per acre, awarded by the respondent, is too meagre and inadequate and that the acquired land is adjacent and very near to the existing Napa Slab mines. It is further averred that the respondent has ignored the factors to be taken into consideration under Section 23 of the Act. During pendency of the said OP, the petitioner has filed IA.No.242 of 2009 for appointment of Royalty Inspector, the Office of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Banaganapalle, Kurnool District, as Commissioner with a direction to him to inspect the lands in question, in order to find out whether Napa Slab deposits are possessed by the lands in question, and to compare the potentialities of the acquired lands with those covered by award No.16/1992- 93, dated 12-03-1993, and award No.77/01-2002, dated 01-03-2002. The said application was dismissed by the Court below on the sole ground that the petitioner failed to raise a specific plea in his claim statement to the effect that his lands contain Napa Slab deposits and that therefore, any amount of evidence will not help him for enhancement of compensation on that ground. In this process, the Court below has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajamani vs. Collector, Rayapur[1] and the judgment of this Court in Kondaveeti Francis vs. M.Ludramma and another[2]. The proposition that the claimant in a reference under Section 18 of the Act is in the position of the plaintiff in a civil suit does not admit of any dispute as it is well settled by the above-mentioned judgment of the Supreme Court. But, the further question is, whether the claimant in reference proceedings is precluded from adducing evidence pertaining to the potentialities of the acquired land merely on the ground that elaborate pleadings in support thereof have not been raised in his claim statement. In my opinion, the burden to prove the potentialities of the acquired land for the purpose of claiming higher compensation being on the claimant is one thing and the requirement of standard of pleadings in Land Acquisition proceedings is quite another thing. Ordinarily, the civil suits are in the nature of adversarial litigation where the plaintiff is bound to raise his pleadings in order to succeed. In contrast, in Land Acquisition proceedings, the ultimate object is to ensure that the person, whose land is acquired, is paid proper market value. Section 23 of the Act envisages matters to be considered while determining compensation, which include the market value of the land as on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. By plethora of judgments, the Courts have held that while determining the market value, the potentialities of lands both present and future shall be taken into consideration. While Article 300-A of the Constitution ordains that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law, the second proviso to Article 300-A of the Constitution mandates that no law providing for acquisition of any estate shall be valid unless it provides for payment of compensation at a rate which shall not be less than the market value thereof. Therefore, a salutary duty is caste on the State and its Officers to ensure that the market value of the land is paid to the owner of the acquired land. Keeping in view this constitutional purpose, the Act provided for reference under Section 18 of the Act. As such, I am of the opinion that the rigours of standards applicable to the pleadings in adversarial civil suits shall not be applied to the Land Acquisition Proceedings. I may however hasten to add that by saying so, this Court shall not be understood as taking the view that there shall be no pleadings at all. When the basic foundation is laid by the claimant with regard to the market value of the land, the evidence connected with the potentialities of the land shall be permitted to be adduced by him without pinning him down to the precise pleadings contained in his claim statement. In the instant case, as already noted the petitioner has specifically pleaded in his claim statement that his land is adjacent and very near to the existing Napa Slab mines. In the affidavit filed in support of IA.No.242 of 2009 also, he pleaded that his lands also contain Napa Slab deposits. In my opinion, the pleadings in the said IA are also relevant for the purpose of determining the correct market value of the acquired land. After all, the petitioner’s endeavour is only to prove that his lands also contain Napa Slab deposits, by seeking appointment of an Officer working in the Mines and Geology Department. This step would only be towards adjudication of the issue pertaining to the correct and proper market value of the acquired land. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason as to why the petitioner’s request shall not be accepted. For the above-mentioned reasons, Order, dated 20- 07-2009, in I.A.No.242 of 2009 in O.P.No.36 of 2003, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, is set aside and I.A.No.242 of 2009 is allowed. The Court below is directed to take appropriate steps as a consequence of allowing I.A.No.242 of 2009 before proceeding further with O.P.No.36 of 2003. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly. As a sequel, CMP.No.4804 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 27th August, 2010 lur [1] 1996 (5) SCC page 701 [2] 2000 (3) ALT page 433