L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

Quite a large extent of land in different survey numbers in Adrial Village of Manthani Mandal, Karimnagar District was acquired by the Government for the benefit of Singareni Collieries Company Limited. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), was published in the year 1985. In the course of award enquiry, the land owners claimed compensation @ Rs.2 lakhs per acre. Separate compensation was claimed for toddy and senahi trees, that were existing over the land. The Land Acquisition Officer passed awards in the year 1987, fixing the market value for the acquired lands, at Rs.7,000/- per acre for those, in category 2 and Rs.6,000/- per acre, under category 3. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought references under Section 18 of the Act. References were made and they were taken up as, O.P.Nos.76, 78 of 1988 and 10 of 1989 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli.

2. Through separate orders, the trial Court fixed the market value at Rs.30,000/- per acre in O.P.Nos.76 and 78 of 1988, and Rs.50,000/-per acre in O.P.No.10 of 1989. It has also awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/-per acre towards subsoil mineral rights. The statutory benefits were extended.

3. The claimants filed A.S.No.1632, 1633 and 1634 of 2001, seeking further enhancement of the compensation. The Singareni Collieries, on the other hand, filed A.S.Nos.686, 687 and 688 of 2001, feeling aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation by the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as claimants, Land Acquisition Officer, and the Singareni Collieries.

4. The claimants submit that the acquired lands were valuable and fertile in nature, and that the transactions, that took place many years prior to the acquisition, disclose that the market value is more than Rs.1 lakh per acre. They submit that under Ex.A-22, of the year 1982, and Exs.A-23 and A-24, of the year 1985, the market value of the land in the same Village at that point of time, ranged between Rs.1,23,000 to Rs.1,84,000/-and that the trial Court ought to have fixed the market value accordingly. They submit that the fixation of the market value at Rs.30,000/-per acre even by adding a sum of Rs.15,000/-, towards subsoil rights, is too meagre and contrary to the evidence on record.

5. The grievance of the Singareni Collieries is not much about the market value, determined by the trial Court for the land, but the award of Rs.15,000/-per acre towards subsoil mineral rights. They submit that once the land, in its entirety is acquired, there cannot be any separate fixation or determination of value for the subsoil minerals or surface rights.

6. Arguments on behalf of the claimants were advanced by Sri K. Bhasker, Sri I. Aga Reddy, and Sri Y. Rama Rao, learned counsel. They submit that the acquisition by the Singareni Collieries is in such a large scale, that Villages together are displaced and the people have to migrate to different places. They contend that the market value of the land, several years prior to the date of acquisition; was in the range of Rs.1,23,000/- to Rs.1,84,000/-per acre, and ignoring the same, the trial Court adopted an un-imaginary figure of Rs.30,000/-per acre. Learned counsel submit that Exs.A-22, A-24, (in O.P.No.10 of 1989), and other documents, were proved without leaving any pale of doubt, and that similar documents were filed in other OPs also. As regards the objection raised by the Singareni Collieries about fixation of separate value for subsoil mineral rights, they contend that, when the very basis for acquiring the land is that there are deposits of coal, award of such compensation cannot be said to be contrary to law.

7. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the Singareni Collieries. He submits that the subsoil rights always vest in the State, and the trial Court was not justified i