Chennu Balakrishna Reddy v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore & Ors.

J U D G M E N T (Per Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) Not content with the enhancement effected by the reference Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, in LAOP No.2 of 1991, five of the claimants are before this Court in appeal. By its Order and Decree dated 30.08.2004, the reference Court enhanced the compensation payable for the acquired land from Rs.11,500/- per acre to Rs.15,000/- per acre. In so far as the fruit bearing trees situated on the acquired lands were concerned, the reference Court enhanced the compensation for each lemon tree from Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- but reduced the multiplier applied by the Land Acquisition Officer from 14 to 12. In the case of cheeni (sweet lime) trees, the reference Court confirmed the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.120/- per tree and also the multiplier of

#14. Appellants 1 and 5 are aggrieved by the limited enhancement both in respect of the land as well as the trees. They seek compensation for the land fixing the market value at Rs.20,000/- per acre. In so far as the trees are concerned, they seek compensation for each lemon tree at Rs.150/- at the increased multiplier of 14 and Rs.300/- for each cheeni tree at the increased multiplier of 16. Appellants 2, 3 and 4 are in appeal only in connection with the fixation of compensation for the trees. They reiterate the claim put forth by appellants 1 and 5 in this regard. A large extent of over 52 acres of land was acquired by the State for the purpose of Kandaleru reservoir under the Telugu Ganga Project. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1894’) was published on

16.11.1989. In so far as the present appeal is concerned, the lands of the appellants situated in Thamancherla Village, Rapur Mandal, Nellore District, were acquired for this purpose. By his Award dated 12.02.1990, the Land Acquisition Officer, upon due enquiry, determined the market value for the lands at Rs.11,500/- per acre. The land of appellant 1 admeasuring Ac.2.87 cents and that of appellant 5 admeasuring Ac.3.00 cents were acquired at the said market value. Fruit bearing trees situated on the lands acquired, belonging to all the appellants, were subjected to value determination for the purpose of compensation. Dissatisfied with this exercise, the appellants along with others similarly situated sought reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, which was taken on file by the reference Court as LAOP No.2 of 1991. Aggrieved by the enhancement effected by the reference Court, the five appellants are before this Court. Five witnesses were examined by the claimants before the reference Court and ten documents were marked in evidence. The report of an Expert Committee constituted by the Director of Horticulture, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, was marked as Ex.A.1. The Committee visited various Villages including Thamancherla Village for the purpose of determining the value of lemon trees which were likely to be submerged under the reservoir. The Committee, upon due consideration, fixed the income from lemon trees per acre at Rs.15,000/- per year and the income from each tree at Rs.150/- to Rs.200/- per year. Deductions were recommended towards cost of cultivation from the above income. Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, dealing with enhancement of the market value of the land, pointed out that his clients relied upon Exs.A.7 to A.10 sale deeds pertaining to the years 1983-84. The market value emerging from the sale consideration obtaining under these sale deeds was in the range of Rs.30,000/- per acre. However, the reference Court eschewed these sale transactions from consideration on the ground that the extents involved thereunder were meager as compared to the extent of the acquired land and as the sale transactions were prior to three years preceding the date of the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894. We find merit in the contention of Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel, that even though there was disparity in the extents, given the fact that the sale transactions were sufficiently anterior to the acquisition, they ought to have been taken into consideration as an indicator of true market value. The reference Court erred in ignoring these sale transactions on the ground that they were prior to the immediate preceding three years before the date of the Section 4(1) notification. There is no such statutory period prescribed for the purpose of consideration and determination of the market value, as erroneously understood by the reference Court. Taking into account the market value emerging from these transactions and keeping in mind the disparity in the extents involved, the market value of the lands ought to have been fixed at Rs.20,000/- per acre. We therefore accept the claim of appellants 1 and 5 that their land should have been valued at Rs.20,000/- per acre. In so far as compensation for the fruit bearing trees is concerned, it is relevant to note that there was no material placed before the reference Court in support of the claim for enhanced compensation for the cheeni trees. Though an Expert Committee was constituted for the purpose of determining the compensation payable for the lemon trees, no similar exercise was undertaken in respect of the cheeni trees. Be that as it may, the burden was upon the appellants to place material before the reference Court to support their claim that the cheeni trees should have been awarded compensation at Rs.300/- per tree adopting a multiplier of 16. However, the record reflects that the appellants failed dismally in this regard and no evidence worth its name was placed before the Court in support of this plea. Mere self- serving statements of the witnesses could not be the basis for seeking such enhancement. However, in so far as the lemon trees are concerned, the report of the Expert Committee (Ex.A.1) clearly demonstrated that the yield from each lemon tree would be in the range of Rs.150/- to Rs.200/- with recommended deductions towards expenditure. Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel, fairly conceded that the cost of cultivation per tree would be about Rs.35/-. The Committee found that the trees inspected ranged between the ages of 7 to 12 years and that the fruits of the trees aged 12 or more suffered degradation in size though the number of fruits remained the same. Given these technical facts, which are beyond the purview of determination by this Court, we are inclined to adopt the lesser value decided upon by the Committee, i.e., Rs.150/-, presently claimed by the appellants. Deducting expenditure at Rs.35/- therefrom, the income from each tree would be about Rs.115/-. Surprisingly, the reference Court failed to discuss or adopt the values indicated in Ex.A.1 report. There is no explanation forthcoming from the Order under appeal as to why the reference Court decided upon the value of Rs.100/- per lemon tree. As the Land Acquisition Officer himself applied the multiplier of 14, we see no reason to differ. The reference Court also does not explain as to why the multiplier has been reduced. The determination by the Land Acquisition Officer, being an offer by the State, the reference Court cannot reduce or decimate the terms of the said offer. We accordingly hold that the appellants are entitled to a multiplier of 14 for the lemon trees valued at Rs.115/- per tree. The Appeal is accordingly allowed in part holding that appellants 1 and 5 are entitled to compensation for their lands admeasuring Ac.2.87 cents and Ac.3.00 cents respectively Thamancherla Village, Rapur Mandal, Nellore District, at Rs.20,000/- per acre; and that appellants 1 to 5 are entitled to compensation for lemon trees at Rs.115/- per tree applying a multiplier of 14. The Order under Appeal shall stand confirmed in so far as the compensation payable for cheeni trees is concerned. Appellants 1 and 5 shall be entitled to additional market value under Section 23(1-A) and solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act of 1894 upon the enhanced market value of Rs.20,000/- per acre and also interest thereon in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in SUNDER V/s. UNION OF INDIA[1]. Needless to state, the sum already paid to appellants 1 and 5 in this regard upon the market value of Rs.15,000/- per acre shall be duly deducted while computing the aforestated amounts. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------ GODA RAGHURAM,J --------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J ________DECEMBER, 2010 PGS [1] AIR 2001 SC 3516