P.Venkatarama Reddi, J. - (1.) These appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act filed by thee Special Deputy Collector, Yeleru Left main canal arise out of a common judgment in O.P.No.56 of 1988 etc., rendered by the Subordinate Judge, Anakapalle. Lands of varying extents - between Ac.0.04 cents and 0.49 cents belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of formation of Yeleru Left main canal. These lands are situated in S.Nos.99 and 101 of pisinikada village in Anakapalli Mandal of Vishakapatnam District. The original notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in A.P. Gazette on 8-8-1981. An errata thereto was published in the Gazette dated 11-1-1982. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAO) passed Award No. 34 of 1985 on 7-8-1984, determining market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 18,495/- per acre. In this particular cases, no mention was made in the award about the existence of any trees, wells and structures. Compensation was awarded only for the value of the wet land acquired. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the landholders sought, reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. By the impugned judgment and decree, the land value was fixed at Rs.3 lakhs per acre. Separate compensation was awarded for trees which constitute the bulk of compensation. For instance in O.P.No.56 of 1988, the total amount of compensation awarded was about Rs. 11.28 lakhs out of which the value of about 1 /4th acre was fixed at Rs.78,822/-. All the OPs were clubbed and joint trial was held. The evidence recorded in O.P.No.62 of 1988 was treated as evidence in the entire batch of OPs. The main witness is PW.2 who is the claimant in OP 56 of 1988. The claimants in other OPs covered by the present appeals were not examined. The details relating to the compensation awarded for the land and trees are set out hereinafter.
(2.) Before we proceed further, we may mention that OP No.67/1988 disposed of by the same common judgment along with the connected OPs. covered by the present Appeals was the subject matter of AS No.709 of 1996. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 20-2-1997, having held that enhancement of compensation both in respect of land and trees was unsustainable, allowed the appeal in toto. The findings of the Division Bench are summarised below: (1) It is unsafe to rely on Ex.A-1 Agreement, more so when the sale was not concluded. (2) Ex.A-6 is in respect of a small plot of land in an adjacent village and the price paid under Ex.A-6 cannot form proper basis to determine a large extent of land. The other sales, most of which are post-notification sales are to be eschewed from consideration as none connected with the transaction was examined. (3) The compensation awarded for the trees cannot be upheld for two reasons: (i) In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, there cannot be separate compensation for the land and the trees; (ii) The oral assertion of the claimants regarding the yield and income from the trees is not supported by any documentary evidence and reliance cannot be placed on mere assertions in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1977 SC 2333.
(3.) As the awards which are the subject matter of present batch of appeals arise out of the same common judgment, we would have just referred to that decision in A.S.No.709 of 1996 and allowed the appeals straightaway, following the same. But, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents - claimants that it was an ex parte decision as the respondent in the said appeal did not appear. That is why, we thought, in all fairness to the parties concerned that we should have a fresh look. We also thought it appropriate to refer to certain additional facts which have a bearing on the genuineness of the respondents' claim especially with regard to the compensation for trees. Hence, we propose to deal with these appeals in detail, notwithstanding the earlier judgment of this Court. Land Value:;