HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.NO.1406 OF 2000 Dt.21.7.2010 Between: Ponnaganti Appa Rao (died) and others ..Appellants And The Special Deputy Collector & L.A.O. Nuzvid, Krishna District. ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.NO.1406 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) This appeal is directed against the order and decree in O.P.No.59 of 1985 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, dated 1.10.1999. The land to an extent of Ac.0.54 cents in R.S.No.3/2B situate at Kunaparajuparva Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District, consisting of 42 lemon trees was acquired pursuant to the notification dated 8.7.1983 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act) for the purpose of excavation of Nagarjunasagar canal. The Land Acquisition Officer by award No.12 of 1984, dated 15.3.1984, awarded compensation for 35 normal trees estimated the annual income at Rs.20/- per tree multiplied by 10 years as yielding capacity which comes to Rs.7,000/- and for 7 sub normal trees the annual income was estimated at Rs.15/- per tree for 10 years yielding capacity which comes to Rs.1050/- and thus awarded the total compensation of Rs.8050/-. On a representation made by the claimant, the matter was referred to the Reference Court under Section 18(1) of the Act. The claimant filed objections before the Reference Court stating that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is grossly inadequate and does not represent the correct value of the tree. According to the claimant the value of each tree is Rs.1800/- and therefore the claimant is entitled to Rs.75,600/- for 42 trees. The claimant stated that the referring officer at least should have fixed the rate at Rs.1000/- per tree i.e., Rs.42,000/- for 42 trees. The Reference Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence enhanced the compensation at Rs.40/- per each normal tree and Rs.25/- per each subnormal tree and thus awarded a total compensation of Rs.15,750/- along with other statutory benefits and accordingly allowed the claim petition by order dated 1.10.1999. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed by the claimants. During the pendency of the reference, the claimant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as claimants 2 to 7, who are appellants herein. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the court below ought to have valued the lemon trees at Rs.1800/- per tree, whereas the referring officer valued at Rs.220/- in his award. It is stated that as per the joint inspection report of the Deputy Executive Engineer, Agricultural Officer and Special Deputy Tahsildar the value of the normal tree was mentioned as Rs.80/- per year and they have recommended for Rs.800/- per each normal tree by calculating 10 years income. But, the court below having accepted the joint committee report enhanced the compensation at Rs.40/- per year only. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is the general power of attorney holder of the claimants. He stated that there were 42 lemon trees in the acquired land, which are aged about 9 years at the time of acquisition. The land acquired is fertile land, which is suitable for lemon garden. The market value per acre was Rs.25,000/- for year per tree and they used to get two crops per year. There is a live fencing on three sides of the entire Ac.1.50 cents of land. The Government fixed at the rate of Rs.220/- per lemon tree. Agricultural Officer, Deputy Executive Engineer and Deputy Tahsildar physically inspected the acquired land and furnished Ex.A-2 report. The claimants also filed Ex.A-3 copy of objections for enhancement of compensation. Ex.A-4 is the acknowledgement. On the said objection petition only, the matter was referred under Section 18(1) of the Act. Ex.A-5 is also another application made to the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Tiruvuru, under Ex.A-6 acknowledgement. The Assistant Director of Horticulture, Eluru visited lemon garden situated at Akkireddygudem and fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.1050/- per tree. It is stated that there is no evidence to show that they would get Rs.1800/- per tree. As per Ex.A- 7 letter addressed by the Director of Horticulture to the Special Collector, Nagarjunasagar Project, the yielding value of the lemon tree is fixed at Rs.100/- per year. The 6th claimant was examined as P.W.2. He stated that the 1st claimant is his father, 2nd claimant is his mother, claimants 3 to 5 are his brothers and 7th claimant is his sister. It is stated that the Government acquired Ac.0.54 cents out of Ac.1.50 cents in which 42 lemon trees were there. All the lemon trees situated in the acquired land were good yielding. Lemon plants start yielding 5 years after planting and start good yielding from the age of 7 or 8 years up to 25 years. The gross income for lemon trees at the time of acquisition was Rs.400/- and net income was Rs.300/-. In the cross-examination it is stated that they used to sell lemon in Eluru market and used to sell in gunny bags and each bag containing approximately 1500 lemons and they get Rs.600/- for each gunny bag. He used to sell 30 to 40 bags lemon for one crop, but he does not have any documentary evidence about the yield and the income. P.W.3 brother of the deceased 1st claimant also stated that there was fencing around the land of the claimants and he also raised lemon trees and used to get Rs.400/- or Rs.500/- per annum per each tree. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, the Senior Assistant in the R.D.O office, Nuzvid, was examined as R.W.1. He stated that the Government acquired Ac.0.54 cents of land in R.S.No.3/2B situate at Konaparajuparva for the purpose of excavation of N.S.canal. There were 42 lemon trees in the said land at the time of acquisition. Out of which, 35 trees are normally grown trees and 7 trees are below normal. The lemon garden was aged 9 years by the date of acquisition. The market value was paid to the lemon trees, but not to the land. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed Rs.20/- for normal lemon tree multiplied by 10 years future yield calculated on each lemon tree and fixed at the rate of Rs.200/- per each normal lemon tree. For abnormal tree, the market value is fixed at Rs.15/- per year and 10 years yield was calculated and fixed Rs.150/- per each abnormal lemon tree. It is admitted by him in the cross-examination that at the time of acquisition there was a joint inspection by the Deputy Executive Engineer, N.S.P, Mylavaram, Agricultural Officer, Vissannapeta and Special Deputy Tahsildar, L.A.O., Tiruvuru, and they personally visited the acquired land and fixed the market value of the trees. In the report it is stated that the normal tree yields lemon fruits worth Rs.80/- per year and recommended for paying Rs.800/- per each normal tree by calculating 10 years income from the normal tree. The said report is Ex.A-2. It is stated that he cannot say whether any fencing was there or not and he also cannot say the Government fixed the rate of Rs.200/- per each normal tree basing on the letter of the Director of Agriculture and whether the rate is reasonable or not. The suggestion that the claimants are entitled to the land value at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre was denied. Thus, it is not in dispute that as per Ex.A-2 joint inspection report the Deputy Executive Engineer, N.S.C. Sub Division No.I, Mylavaram, Agricultural Officer, Panchayat Samithi, Vissannapeta, and the Special Deputy Tahsildar (L.A.), Tiruvuru visited the acquired land in which 42 lemon trees were there in R.S.No.3/2B and noticed 38 normal trees and 4 subnormal trees and the value of the normal trees was taken into account at Rs.80/- per tree and for 38 trees the value was assessed at Rs.30,400/- and for 4 subnormal trees the value was assessed at Rs.2000/- and the total value was assessed at Rs.32,400/-. The report indicates that the value of normal trees is Rs.80/- per year and the yielding capacity is 10 years and for 38 trees they have valued at Rs.30,400/-. The calculation was also mentioned in the said report stating that the value of the normal tree will yield Rs.80/- per year and for 10 years it was assessed at Rs.800/- per tree. So far as subnormal trees are concerned, they have assessed at Rs.50/- per annum and for 10 years they have assessed at Rs.500/- for subnormal trees and for 4 trees it was assessed to Rs.2,000/-. The claimants also relied on Ex.A-7, which is a letter addressed by the Director of Horticulture on 6.2.1984 to the Assistant Secretary to Government, Office of the Commissioner and Land Revenue, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. According to which, the value of the normal fruit bearing tree is estimated at Rs.600/- per year. In the instant case, the acquisition was in the year 1983 and so far as Ex.A-2 is concerned, it is not in dispute that there is a joint inspection report and even R.W.1 examined on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer accepted that the said report was admitted by him. If that be so, we do not see any reason for not relying on Ex.A- 2. But, however, the claimants have stated that there are 35 normal trees in the acquired land. If that be so, it would come to Rs.28,000/- (35 x 80 x 10). In so far as 7 subnormal trees are concerned as per Ex.A-2, the value is assessed as Rs.3,500/- (7 x 50 x 10). Therefore, the total amount comes to Rs.31,500/-. We are of the opinion that the Reference Court has rightly accepted Ex.A-2 report and without any justification taken half of the report only. Therefore, we are of the opinion that Ex.A-2 can fairly be relied without any hesitation. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.15,750/- to Rs.31,500/- for acquiring 42 lemon trees in an extent of Ac.0.54 cents. The claimants are also entitled for all other statutory benefits as awarded by the Reference Court on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 21.7.2010 kpr