V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) SINCE all these appeals arise out of the same notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act ) and the Award No. 2/89, dated 28-2-1989, they are disposed of by a common judgment as under.

( 2 ) THESE appeals are directed against two separate judgments of the learned Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram, dated 10-2-1997, in two batches of O. Ps. , the 1st batch comprising OPs. 150, 148, 151 and 157 of 1989 and the 2nd batch comprising OPs. 149 and 156 of 1989.

( 3 ) A total extent of Ac. 80. 28 cts. , was sought to be acquired in Ramanayyapeta village of Yeleswaram Mandal for submergeable area under Yeleru Reservoir Project, Yeleswaram. The total extent, however, involved in these appeals is Ac. 70. 53 cts. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published on 6-9-1988. An extent of Ac. 40. 56 cts. , belongs to the claimants claiming each 1/4 share, in the first batch of OPs. They arc appellants in A. S. Nos. 822, 825, 826 and 835 of 1997. An extent of Ac. 29. 97 cts. , belongs to the claimants, claiming 1/2 share each, in the 2nd batch of OPs. against which A. S. Nos. 824 and 828 of 1997 are filed. After following the procedure prescribed under law, the Land Acquisition Officer pass Ed Awand No. 2/89, dated 28-2-1989. The total extent of Ac. 70. 53 cts land was categorised into 3 types, viz. , Dry land with wet crops; Dry land with dry crops, and Waste land. For an extent of Ac. 67. 34 cts. , which was categorised as dry land with wet crop, the LAO granted Rs. 20,000. 00 per acre towards compensation. Ac. 1. 12 cts. was categorised as dry land with dry crop and an amount of Rs. 13,000. 00 per acre was granted as compensation, Ac. 2. 07 cts. , was categorised as waste land and Rs. 3,000. 00 per acre was granted as compensation. Solatium, additional market value and interest were awarded in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The L. A. O. also granted certain amount towards the value of the trees, arrived at on the basis of capitalisation method. Certain amounts were also granted towards the value of the structures found on the land. Not satisfied with the compensation, the claimants approached the Court below under Section 18 of the Act and the learned Subordinate Judge, in the judgments dated 10-2-1997, considering the evidence on record, enhanced the compensation as follows: (i) Rs. 30,000. 00 per Ac. for dry land with wet crops; (ii) Rs. 20,000. 00 per Ac. for dry land with dry crops; (iii) Rs. 15,000. 00 per Ac. for waste land. Learned Subordinate Judge, however, negatived the claim for the enhancement of market value so far as trees and structures are concerned. Aggrieved by the judgments of the Court below, the appellants approached this Court in the present appeals.

( 4 ) SRI V. L. N. G. Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel for the appellants, contends that the entire land should have been classified as dry land with wet crop and a uniform rate should have been adopted and that there was no basis for categorisation of the land into 3 types and the value of the entire land should have been fixed at Rs. 55,000. 00 per Ac. It is also contended that the appellants arc entitled for the compensation to the trees on the basis of capitalisation method and the Court below erred in not considering the Commissioner s report, which shows the total number of trees and the structures upon the land and their correct value.

( 5 ) LEARNED Government Pleader, however, resists the contentions and submits that the compensation awarded for the land, trees and structures was perfectly justified. It is further vehemently contended that the appellants arc not entitled for any compensation for the trees since the land was valued with reference to the trees that were found on the land and law is well settled that it is not permissible to value the trees separately.

( 6 ) THERE appears to be justification in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document