This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the District Court whereby the award passed by the Civil Judge was set aside and the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Act’ for short) was confirmed.

2. Briefly stated, the land measuring 2 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.119/P of Holalur Village belonging to the appellant was acquired for the purpose of ‘Upper Tunga Project’ – the beneficiary. A preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 26.9.2001. Along with the said land, some other lands in the neighbourhood belonging to others were also acquired for the above purpose. The Special Land Acquisition Officer classified the lands as dry land and in a common award granted the compensation @ Rs.38,000/- per acre. The appellant/claimant received the compensation under protest and filed a petition under Section 18 of the Act, to refer his claim to the Civil Court for re-determination of the compensation amount, since the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was on a lower side and the market value of the land, which was at Rs.3,00,000/- per acre at the time of the preliminary notification, was overlooked. Accordingly, the matter was referred. The Karnataka Neeravari Nigama Limited, Upper Tunga Project, Holalur/the beneficiary participated in the enquiry. That apart, the owners of the neighbouring land, whose land was also acquired under the same notification, had also filed similar application under Section 18(1) of the Act. All the matters were clubbed and the appellant herein adduced evidence on his behalf and also on behalf of other claimants and produced 11 documents. Though no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents, three documents were marked for them. By a common judgment dated 10.10.2006, the learned Referral Court enhanced the compensation in respect of the land of the appellant herein holding that, he is entitled for compensation @ Rs.85,000/- per acre. As the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation in respect of 31 guntas only and capitalized the value of the standing trees in respect of remaining 1 acre 17 guntas, the compensation was awarded in respect of said 1 acre 17 guntas left out by the L.A.O. Aggrieved by the said award, the beneficiary/first respondent herein challenged the award of the Referral Court before the District Court. The learned District Judge upheld the findings recorded by the L.A.O. that there is no necessity to award compensation to the lands where the trees are in existence. The learned District Judge found fault with the claim that except the sale deed, no other document was produced by the claimant in support of his claim for enhanced compensation. There was no documentary proof in respect of the price of the agricultural produce during the relevant time and the Yield Certificate of the pricelist issued by the APMC authorities. To hold that the award of the L.A.O. was inadequate, there was no documentary proof of the crops grown over the land at the relevant point of time. Ex.P1 was a registered sale deed dated 28.4.2003 pertaining to 5 guntas of land in the neighbourhood i.e., subsequent to the date of preliminary notification, which in the eyes of the District Judge, was inadequate to enhance the compensation, thus the enhanced amount awarded by the Referral Court was set aside.

3. Sri.P.N.Harish, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits, the lower appellate court grossly erred in not allowing the compensation in respect of 1 acre 17 guntas of land acquired by the L.A.O. Mere awarding value of the tree will not absolve the acquiring authority of its liability to compensate the loss caused to the owner from the acquisition of the land on which the trees were standing. It is to be noted that the beneficiary, without challenging the enhanced compensation awarded in respect of the other claims of the very same common award, chose to challen