THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR A.S.No.424 of 1999 Date of Order: 05-08-2009 Between: Kothur Veera Raghava Prasad Reddy ..Appellant and The Special Deputy Collector, (L.A.) Somasila Project, Unit IV, Rajampet, Cuddapah District. ..Respondent Counsel for the appellant : Sri D.Sudarsana Reddy Counsel for the respondent: G.P. for Appeals The Court made the following: Judgment: (Per Honourable Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal by the claimant is directed against the decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Cuddapah dated 09-02-1998 passed in L.A.O.P.No.172 of 1981. An extent of Ac.1.94 cts. of land in Sy.No.110/2 of Kothur Village belonging to the claimant was acquired with acid lime trees and orange trees by the Government through draft notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) and possession of the land was taken on 24-11-1980. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) after complying due formalities and after conducting award enquiry fixed the market value at Rs.40/- for each big acid lime tree; Rs.20/- for small acid lime tree with a multiplier of 14, and at Rs.40/- for orange trees with a multiplier of 13. Dissatisfied with the award made by the LAO reference under Section 18 of the Act was sought to the civil court. On behalf of the claimant, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were got marked. On behalf of the referring officer, R.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B1 to B19 were got marked. Taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties, the reference court enhanced the market value of acid limit tree to Rs.600/- and for orange trees to Rs.800/- as against Rs.40/- fixed by the LAO, but the number of trees were taken as found by the LAO i.e. 34 acid lime trees and 90 orange trees. Being not satisfied with the enhancement made by the civil court, the appellant/claimant filed A.S.No.2729 of 1984. This Court by order dated 22-08-1995 set aside the judgment of the lower court and remanded the matter to the civil court for deciding compensation afresh in the light of the observations including number of trees on the land and evidence of R.W.4. On remand being made, the civil court after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties in the light of the remand order fixed the market value of each acid lime tree at Rs.2,000/- for 34 trees and each sweet orange tree at Rs.1500/- for 90 trees. In addition to the additional market value, awarded 30% solatium and interest at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession for one year and thereafter 15% per annum till the date of payment of enhanced compensation. Since the civil court calculated only for 34 acid lime trees and 90 orange trees without taking into consideration the evidence of R.W.5 and Ex.B17, the present appeal has been filed claiming compensation for 48 acid lime trees as against 34 and 100 orange trees as against 90 awarded by the lower court. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent—referring officer. This court while remanding the matter directed the lower court to find out the true and correct number of trees in the light of evidence of R.W.4 regarding valuation of the acid lime trees and orange trees. On such remand being made one Mr.P.Bhakskar Reddy, who worked as Assistant Director of Agriculture, was examined as R.W.5 and Ex.B17 has been marked. According to the evidence of R.W.5, he along with Special Deputy Collector of Somasila Project made joint inspection in reach No.IV of Kothur village, prepared the report (Ex.B17) and submitted to the Special Deputy Collector Somasila Project. Ex.B17—report contains 63 pages with regard to various survey numbers and trees standing thereon. It shows that Sl.No.110/2 covers an extent of Ac.1.94 cts. where he stated that there are 52 acid lime trees, 100 orange plants, 1 guava plant, 5 soap-nut trees, 2 drumstick trees, 6 margosa trees, 3 ravi trees and 1 athi tree existing on the land. Out of 52 acid lime trees, 45 trees are big and 7 trees are small, aged about 11 years and they are likely to give yield for another 14 years. Taking into consideration their age and net return he estimated Rs.40/- for big tree and Rs.20/- for small tree. The lower court has brushed aside the said evidence only on the ground that O.P. is limited to fix the compensation for 90 orange trees and 34 acid lime trees. In the remand order this Court clearly observed that without reference to the record asked to be produced in the appeal it is difficult as to how many was the total number of trees and without reference to that record the lower court could not have come to the conclusion as to what was the total number of trees of each variety and to find out the true and correct number of trees the matter has to be remitted back to the lower court. Once the lower court decided that the claimant is entitled to Rs.2,000/- for acid lime trees and Rs.1500/- for orange trees, he is entitled to the entire 48 acid lime trees and 100 orange trees but not 34 acid lime trees and 90 orange trees as found by the lower court. Since the evidence on record clearly establishes that there are 52 acid lime trees, out of which 45 trees are big and 7 trees are small and 100 orange trees, we accordingly award compensation at Rs.2,000/- per tree for the remaining 14 acid lime trees and at Rs.1,500/- per tree for the remaining 10 orange trees. The claimant is entitled to all statutory benefits as per amended Act 68/1984. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ B.CHANDRAKUMAR, J. 05-08-2009 Murthy