Judgment

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. These appeals are directed against judgment dated 5.10.2001 of the Madras High Court whereby the compensation determined by the Reference Court vide award dated 2.4.1993 passed in LAOP Nos. 29 and 30 of 1988 was substantially reduced.

2. On a requisition sent by Executive Engineer (Construction), Southern Railway for the acquisition of land for construction of Karur-Dindigul Broad Gauge Line, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), which was published in the official Gazette dated 30.5.1984 for the acquisition of 19.72 acres land including land comprised in survey Nos. 658/2, 663/3B, 664, 665/1, 667/1 and 668 owned by R. Saragapani and Soundararajan (both of whom are now represented by their legal representatives) situated in village Vembur, Vadasandur Taluk, Dindigul District. The Special Tahsildar inspected the acquired land and submitted report dated 6.1.1987 to District Revenue Officer, Anna, District Dindigul indicating therein that value of the acquired land and coconut trees available at the site including 30% solatium would be Rs.3,70,190.50.

3. Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar, Karur-Dindigul Broad Gauge Railway Line, Unit II, Dindigul (for short, `the Land Acquisition Officer') passed award dated 19.5.1987 and declared that the landowners are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per acre. He also awarded Rs.160/- per yielding coconut tree and Rs.30/-per young coconut tree (trees with flowers and flowering stage).

4. Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the land owners filed applications under Section 18 of the Act. Thereupon, the Collector made reference to the Court for determination of the compensation payable to the landowners. The same were registered as LAOP Nos. 29 and 30 of 1988. In what was described as the counter statements filed by them, the landowners claimed that they were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/-per acre. They also claimed that the coconut trees were capable of giving crop for 50 years at the rate of Rs.500/- per annum.

5. During the pendency of reference, the Reference Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner for inspection of the acquired land to ascertain the number of trees and their age. The Court Commissioner took the assistance of Village Administrative Officer and Shri P. Nagarajan, Agricultural Development Officer Panchayath Union, Vedasandur and inspected the acquired land on 7.11.1992 after giving notice to both the parties. The landowners and their Advocate Shri K. Subramanian were present at the time of inspection but none appeared on behalf of the respondent. After inspecting the site, Shri P. Nagarajan submitted report dated 7.11.1992 with the finding that the trees were 17 years old and would give better yield for a further period of 70 years. He also opined that each tree will give a total income of Rs.29,890/-. Thereafter, the Advocate Commissioner submitted report dated 20.11.1992 to the Reference Court endorsing the report of Shri P. Nagarajan.

6. The Reference Court first considered the question as to how many trees existed on the acquired land, referred to the evidence of the parties as also the Advocate Commissioner's report and observed:

"What is the number of coconut trees present in the lands acquired in L.A.O.P. No.29/1988?

It is found that the number of trees mentioned in the award is wrong Exhibit R6 would show that the same is wrong. Exhibit R6 would show that the same is wrong. Exhibit R6 is the report filed by the Land Acquisition Officer after inspection on 06.01.1987. It is shown in the report that there are 9 yielding and 46 young coconut trees in S.F. No. 658/2, that in S.F. No. 665/1 there are 6 yielding coconut trees, 59 coconut trees with flowers, 199 young coconut trees, that there are 11 coconut trees in S.F. No. 668, that there are 56 coconut trees and 6 ver