Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Special Deputy Collector, (L.A.O), ... vs Padala Venkata Ramana on 31 December, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(2)ALD115, 1999(2)ALT54, 1999 A I H C 2612, (1999) 1 LACC 422, (1999) 2 ANDHLD 115, (1999) 2 ICC 502, (1999) 2 ANDH LT 54, (2000) 2 ANDHWR 130
Author: P. Venkatarama Reddi
Bench: P. Venkatarama Reddi, Ramesh Madhav Bapat
ORDER P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.
1. These appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act filed by the Special Deputy Collector, Yeleru Left main canal arise out of a common judgment in OP 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 situate in S.Nos.99 and 101 of Pisinikada village in Anakapalli Mandal of Visakhapatnam 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 case, 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 land-holders 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 OP No.56 of 1988, the total amount of compensation awarded was about Rs.11.28 lakhs out of which the value of about l/4th acre was fixed at Rs.78,822/-. All the OPs. were clubbed and joint trial was held. The evidence recorded in OP No.62 of 1988 was treated as evidence in the entire batch of OPs. The main witness is PW2 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 arc set out hereinafter.
2. Before we proceed further, we may mention that OP No.67 of 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 tola. The. Findings of the Division Bench are summarised beiow:
(1) It is unsafe to rely on Ex.A1 Agreement, moreso when the sale was not concluded.
(2) Ex.A6 is in respect of a small plot of land in an adjacent village and the price paid under Ex.A6 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 AS No.709 of 1996 and allowed the appeals straight-away, following the same. But, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants that it was an exparte 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:
4. First, we take up the question of valuation of land which is classified as wet land. Ex.A1 dated 20-4-1981 which is an Agreement of sale purportedly executed by PW2 (claimant in OP 56 of 1988) in favour of P\V3 is the sheet-anchor of the claimants' case. The said Agreement which was implicitly believed by the lower Court is in respect of 15 out of 17 cents of land held by PW2 in S.No.101 which forms part of the acquired land. As noticed earlier, the first notification under Section 4(1) was published on 8-8-1981 and an errata thereto was published on 11-1-1982. The alleged Agreement is about four months prior to the publication of the Notification under Section 4(1). Though it cannot be discarded merely because it is an Agreement, its genuineness cannot be readily accepted without cogent and convincing evidence more so when it was executed by the claimant himself just on the eve of acquisition of land.
5. It is beyond dispute that the acquisition proceedings were initiated on the basis of the requisition sent by the Executive Engineer concerned and by that time the Survey would have taken place. Thus, the proposed acquisition for excavation of Yeleru Left canal would have been a known fact even by April, 1988, assuming that the said Agreement was in fact entered into. Secondly, as rightly pointed out by the Division Bench in AS No.709 of 1996, the so-called Agreement of sale did not culminate into a regular sale. It was cancelled on 10-10-1981 under Ex.A3 and the money said to have been received by PW2 was refunded to the vendee. The cancellation was on the ostensible ground that the land was under acquisition. We do not consider it proper and safe to fix the market value of the acquired land on the basis of a cancelled Agreement of sale, assuming that such Agreement was in fact executed. Thirdly, the case of PW2 that he agreed to sell the land as he was in need of money for the marriage of his daughter does not inspire confidence. A wedding invitation card (Ex.A2) was filed. But the fact remains that PW2 received only Rs.20,000/- and he gave six months time for the payment of balance money and completion of sale. That is not consistent with the conduct of necessitous person. Above all, the factum of existence of such agreement was not brought to the notice of Land Acquisition Officer when he recorded the statement of PW2 in January, 1985. PW2 comes forward with a version that the LAO did not record the statement properly and that reference to the Agreement was not made at all in the award though in fact it was brought to his notice. It is difficult to accept the version for more than one reason. It is not the case of PW2 that he was unaware of the statement recorded by the LAO. The statement found in the original record is very short one and it is admittedly signed by PW2. The theory that the LAO refused to record the statement truthfully was put forward in Ex.A4 legal notice which was issued long after the statement was recorded. There is about four months gap. If there was such a glaring misconduct on the part of LAO or his staff in not recording the statement and in refusing to take the documents on record, any reasonable or prudent person would have thought of lodging a complaint with the higher authorities or should not have refrained from taking steps to issue a notice immediately. Ex.A4, if at all it was sent, seems to be the result of an after-thought. We have also a serious doubt about the sending of notice and the genuineness of postal acknowledgment. The acknowledgment is on an ordinary slip of paper and the words "Posts and Telegraphs Department" were written in ink. The receipt of registration has not been filed. However, as no attempt was made to challenge the genuineness of the acknowledgment (Ex.A5), we do not want to express any final opinion on this. The reference Court placed much reliance on the factum of sending the legal notice before passing the award. This, according to the learned Judge, lends credence to the genuineness of the Agreement evidenced by Ex.A1. We find it difficult to appreciate how Ex.A1 gains its credibility by reason of sending the legal notice referring to the said Agreement, long after the statement was recorded by the LAO. On an overall consideration, we cannot but avoid the impression that Ex.Al was invented for the purpose of inflating the claim for compensation.
6. The sale of small plot of land of 327 sq. yards., under Ex.A6 dated 7-5-1979 was sought to be projected as another instance of comparable sale. The sale consideration under Ex.A6 is Rs.10,000/-. It works out to Rs. 1.47 lakhs per acre. Reference Court did not place much reliance on the ground that there was no need to take this sale into account in the face of Ex.A1 relating to the acquired land ifself. We have referred to Ex.A6 to indicate that if this sale transaction is taken into account, the value to be estimated would have been much less. However, as pointed out by the Division Bench in AS No.709 of 1996, the sale of small plot of land of 327 sq. yards., that too situate in a developed village by name Kothuru, cannot form proper basis for determination of the value of the agricultural land under acquisition, In Ex.A6, the land in described as a site. Reference to the boundaries in the sale-deed indicates that it is adjacent to the Grant Trunk Road on one side and there is another road on the other side. Hence, even Ex.A6 does not come to the aid of the respondents. The other documents were eschewed from consideration by the trial Court itself in AS No.709 of 1986, the Division Bench rightly observed that these sale-deeds cannot form the basis as none connected with the documents was examined and that they were all post-notification sales.
7. It is relevant to mention that in all the claim statements filed before the reference Court, it was stated that compensation at the rate of Rs.2 lakhs per acre was claimed before the L.A.O. The market value which is determined under the impugned award is thus much more than what the respondents themselves allegedly claimed before the LAO even on their own admission. We are not saying for a moment that there is a legal bar against awarding more compensation. But, the said admission gives only an indication that the claimants were content with receiving compensation at Rs.2 lakhs per acre (Rs.2,000/- per cent). But, they laid a speculative claim before the reference Court, which found its ready acceptance by the Court.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that determination of market value of land at Rs.3,000/- per cent (Rs.3 lakhs per acre) is wholly arbitrary and perverse. However, fixation of wet land value at Rs.18,500/- by the LAO cannot also be upheld as we feel that some enhancement is warranted in view of the potentialities of the land. There is evidence to show that the land in question is situate very near to Kothuru village which as per the evidence on record is at a distance of less than one kilometre. The land is very near to A.M.A.L. College. It is not too far from Anakapalle which is a town. The evidence about the possibility of development of the site as house sites, though exaggerated in some respects, cannot be ignored. It is no doubt that no comparable sale transaction worthy of credence has been filed by the claimants. But the fact remains that due allowance should be given to the future potentialities of the land acquired. The land cannot be evaluated merely as a wet land. We are of the view that on a rough and ready estimate, it is fair and proper to award 50 per cent more than what the LAO has awarded. The market value of the acquired lands can therefore be fixed at the rate of Rs.28,000/-per acre as against Rs.18,495/- fixed by the LAO. The compensation should be recalculated accordingly.
Re Compensation for trees :
The award of hefty sums as compensation for trees shocks the judicial conscience of the Court, both with regard to the findings (or if we may say so, assumptions) as to the existence of trees as well as evaluation of trees. We have gone through the records in each and every case. The records unfold startling revelations. In the Award in the column "value of trees", it is noted as "nil". Wherever trees are there, compensation was fixed by the LAO. In the statements made before the LAO, it is specifically stated that there are no trees, wells and huts. However, PW2-the claimant in OP 56 of 1988 stated in the application made to the LAO on 14-9-1985 that he claimed compensation for 2 Sapota trees, 2 Coconut trees, 8 Palmyrah trees and I Sampangi (Gold-flower) tree and the same was not awarded without any reason. In the statement made before LAO, no mention was made by PW2 about the trees. There is statement to the effect that there are no wells, huts etc. A perusal of the claim statement curiously reveals that PW2 claimed compensation for 15 coconut trees 30 sapota trees, 10 sampangi (Gold-flower) trees and 150 palmyrah trees. That was accepted and altogether Rs. 10,50,000/- was awarded towards the value of the trees. The extent of land acquired from PW2 is Ac.0.28 cents (1315 sq.yds.,). It is on this small extent of land, so many trees are supposed to have existed according to the version of PW2 in his claim statement and in his deposition. It is worthy of note that in Ex.Al set up by PW2, no recital is made about the trees at all in the schedule. IfEx.Al is true, PW2 agreed to sell 15 cents which is almost half of the land acquired from him. Ex.A1 is conspicuous by non-mention of any trees. It is impossible to think that so many number of fruit or flower-bearing trees would be existing only on the remaining portion of the land of just 13 cents (equivalent to 625 sq.yds.,) or even an area of 20 cents. No compensation was awarded by LAO obviously because there were no trees. No claim was made before the LAO by any of the respondents herein. The statement recorded by LAO after Section 9(3) & (10) notices were issued, does not refer to any trees. The claim of PW2 should have been decided on the touch-stone of common sense and probabilities apart from the other factors pointed above. But, unfortunately the Subordinate Judge was determined to believe whatever the claimant had stated on the specious plea that there was no rebuttal evidence. Here again, Ex.A4 which is a legal notice issued before the Award was passed was pressed into service. We have already commented about Ex.A4 while discussing about the land value. The contents of the legal notice as regards the trees goes contra to the application dated 14-9-1985 given by PW2 seeking reference to the Court. That application was submitted long after the legal notice. Thus, it is clear that there were fruit bearing trees on the land, is nothing but a false claim.
9. As regards the net income from the trees, whatever PW2 had stated, was accepted without reservations. Reference Court awarded compensation 3 to 6 times more than what PW2 himself claimed in the claim statement. For example, compensation was awarded at the exorbitant rate of Rs.60,000/-per tree in the case of ten Sampenga ('gold flower') trees, as against Rs. 10,000/- claimed in Ex.A4 and the claim statement and Rs.8,0007- claimed by PW2 while giving his evidence. The highly artificial and exaggerated version of the claimant as regards the income from trees was implicitly believed by the learned Judge. We extract below the relevant portion of the deposition of PW2:
"Sampangi trees were aged about 20 years. By selling Sampangi flowers, 1 used to get Rs.107- net income per day from each Sampangi tree, likewise I used to get Rs.3007- net income per month on each Sampangi tree. Sampangi trees used to bear flowers for a period often months in a year. During two months of summer season, Sampangi trees will not bear any flowers......"
10. Unreservedly believing this evidence, the net income per year was calculated at Rs.3,000/- (excluding the period of two months which PW2 stated was the off-season). While doing so, the learned Judge commented that there was no cross-examination by the Government Pleader on this aspect. The learned Judge then applied the multiplier of 20 purporting to follow the decision of learned single Judge of this Court in G. Manikyam v. Land Acquisition Officer, 1988(1) ALT 699.
11. As regards the income from coconut trees, similar exaggerated version unsupported by any evidence was given. This is what PW2 had to say about the coconut trees: "The age of coconut trees was ten years by the date of Government acquiring our lands and by then four years prior to Government acquiring lands. I am realising usufruct from the coconut fruits four times. For each pkick, I used to get 70 coconuts. The coconut fruit by then was at Rs.2/-. I used to get Rs.400/- net income per year on each coconut tree".
12. Coming to the decision (supra) of the learned single Judge in the case of G. Manikyam that decision insofar it lays down that the actual income from the trees should be capitalised by applying a multiplier of 20 and that separate compensation should be assessed for the land and the trees based on their net income, runs counter to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in more than one case. The Division Bench, while allowing the appeal (A.S. No.709 of 1996} against the Award in OP No.67 of 1968 (forming part of the same common judgment of the reference Court) followed the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Gurucharan Singh, , K. Rama Swamy, J speaking for the Supreme Court observed in the said decision as follows:
"It is settled law that the Collector or the Court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to the value of the acquired land. The market value is (if?) determined on the basis of the yield, then necessarily applying suitable multiplier, the compensation needs to be awarded. Under no circumstances the Court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well as fruit bearing trees. In other words, market value of the land is (sic) determined twice over; once on the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got from the fruit bearing trees".
As regards the multiplier to be adopted, it was laid down:
"...Under no circumstances, the multiplier should be more than 8 years multiplier as it is settled law of this Court in catena of decisions that when the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the trees or plantation, 8 years multiplier shall be appropriate multiplier. For agricultural lands, 12 years multiplier shall be suitable multiplier".
13. However, as regards the compensation to be awarded for the land with fruit bearing trees and also as regards the multiplier to be adopted, the principle was somewhat differently enunciated by the same learned Judge in Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma v. State of Kerala, . It was observed at paragraph 6:
"It is thus settled law that in evaluating the market value of the acquired property, namely, land and the building or the lands with fruit bearing trees standing thereon, value of both would not constitute one unit; but separate units; it would be open to the Land Acquisition Officer or the Court either to assess the lands with all its advantages as potential value and fix the market value thereof or where there is reliable and acceptable evidence available on record of the annual net income multiplied by appropriate capitalisation of 15 years would be proper and fair method to determine the market value but not both. In the former case the trees are to be separately valued as timber and to deduct salvage expenses to cut and remove the trees from the land. In this case the award of compensation was based on both the value of the land and trees. Accordingly, the determination of the compensation of the land as well as the trees is illegal. The High Court laid the law correctly."
After laying down the legal position in those words, it was ultimately concluded:
'.... The market value of the income from the trees with 15 years multiplier was worked out at Rs.2,69,421.55p by the Civil Court and the High Court accepted to be the correct valuation and it was also not questioned. But it is lesser than the value of the land. Being higher in value the appellant is entitled to the value of the land as determined by the Civil Court at Rs.3,00,000/- in total. The value of the trees as fire-wood shall be determined towards compensation".
14. In Administrator Genl. of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, , which was referred to with approval in Koyappathodi 's case (supra), the proposition laid down was as under:
"So far as the tree growth is concerned, it is trite proposition that where land is valued with reference to its potentiality for building purposes on the basis of prices fetched by small sites in a hypothetical lay-out, the tree growth on the land cannot be valued independently on the basis of its horticultural value or with reference to the value of the yield. But this principle does not come in the way of awarding the timber value or the salvage value of the tree growth after providing for the cost of cutting and removing.."
15. A Division Bench of this Court in Special Deputy Collector v. G. Nagabhushanam, 1996 (1) ALD 1173, after referring to the three decisions cited supra, summarised the principle in the following terms:
".... Where land is valued with reference to its potentiality for building purposes and on the basis of price fetched by small sites in a hypothetical lay out, the tree growth on the land cannot be valued independently on the basis of its horticultural value or with reference to the value of the yield. But this principle does not come in the way of awarding the timber value or the salvage value of the tree growth after providing for the cost of cutting and removing."
16. The same is the principle to be applied in the case of lands which have been valued as orchards on the basis of the yield from the trees. In Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davangere v. Veerabhadrappa, , the Supreme Court observed that proper multiplier to be applied should be 12-1/2 in the computation of the capitalised value of agricultural lands. That was a case of acquisition of the year 1971 when the rate of return on investment was 8.25%.
17. It was then observed that the principles laid down in the afore-mentioned cases cannot be applied to the facts of that case for the reason that "the lands have been valued merely as agricultural lands without reference to their potential value for building purposes". While holding so, the learned Judges upheld the Award of compensation at the rate of Rs.300/- per tree (sendhi or palmyrah), the total number of trees being only 17.
18. Though the two pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Administrator Genl. of West Bengal (supra) and Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma (supra) were available by the date of passing the impugned awards, those decisions were not referred to at all by the lower Court. The learned Judge thought it fit to follow the decision of this Court in Manikyam's case (supra) which cannot be accepted as laying down the correct law in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to supra. That is one aspect of the matter. The other aspect which deserves notice is that the ratio of Manikyam 's case (supra) which is discernible from paragraph 6 does not apply to the facts of the present case. It was observed therein:
"With regard to the value of the land, as stated earlier, since the large extents of land only some trees are standing the value separately given to the trees cannot reflect the market value. Accordingly, separate market value has to be given to the land as well as the small number of trees."
19. Where the extent of land involved is small and the trees are many, the above principle as such does not apply. Moreover, in the very judgment, it was observed that the lower Court adopted a correct method in excluding one cent of land for each tree. But, no such exclusion was made in the instant cases. Even with regard to the income from the coconut tree per year, the estimate made by the reference Court is not in accordance with the estimate made in that decision even after giving due allowance to the rise in price of coconuts. Thus, the decision in Manikyam's case (supra) has been relied upon to the extent it is advantageous to the claimants while eschewing what is disadvantageous to them. We have referred to this decision only to demonstrate how arbilrarily the Subordinate Judge determined the compensation for trees taking shelter under the said decision.
20. Assuming that the value of the fruit bearing trees has to be capitalised by a suitable multiplier in order to determine the value of the acquired land, it has to be noted that there was absolutely no reliable evidence much less documentary evidence about the income from the lands. The Supreme Court in Dilwarsab v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1977 SC 2333, cautioned that much reliance ought not to be placed on oral evidence with regard to the income from lands. That apart, having regard to the age of the trees as admitted by PW2 himself, the application of the multiplier of 20 on the assumption that the potential of yield would remain the same for another 20 years is wholly unwarranted.
21. In fact, the discussion as regards the income from the trees is practically unnecessary in view of our finding that the claimants have not established the existence of trees at all on these small extents of agricultural lands.
22. The learned Subordinate Judge should have taken elementary care to scrutinise the oral evidence and evaluate its intrinsic worth instead of commenting that the Government advocate did not cross-examine PW2 or that rebuttal evidence was not let in. The claimants themselves did not deem it fit to claim so much as was estimated by the Court. The learned Judge should have thought over twice before unreservedly accepting the interested version of PW2 and arriving at the yield and income at such high figure. Even if there was no cross-examination by the Government Pleader, the Court is not helpless to elicit the truth. The Court need not glibly swallow whatever is stated by the claimant in his own interest without subjecting the evidence to critical scrutiny and testing the same from the standpoint of common knowledge and probabilities.
23. Thus, both with regard to the income from the trees allegedly existing and the value of the land, the lower Court indulged in feats of imagination and ultimately fixed the compensation which cannot be sustained.
Details in individual cases OP No. 56 of 1988 Land acquired :
0.28 cents (1350 sq. yards) Compensation awarded by Court :
Rs. 11,28,821/-
Compensation for trees :
Rs. 10.50 lakhs No. of trees Compensation claimed as per claim statement Claim as per evidence of PW2 Compensation as per impugned Award Coconut (15) 10,000/-
8,000/-
Sapota (30) 3,000/-
5,000/-
10,000/-
Sampenga (Gold flower) (10) 10,000/-
8,000/-
(as per Ex. A4 legal notice Rs.15,000/-) 60,000/-
Palmyrah (150) 500/-
200/-
24. In the application for reference to Court (dated 14-9-1985), it was stated that compensation for two sapota and two coconut and 8 palmyrah was not paid by the Land Acquisition Officer and no reasons were given by him. In the statement before the LAO, no mention was made about trees. The claimants stated that there were no wells, huts etc. In the alleged notice given under Ex.A4 after the statement was recorded by the LAO, compensation was claimed for the first time stating that the LAO did not record his statement properly.
25. That is the position in OP 56 of 1988 in which the claimant examined himself as PW2. When we turn to other OPs., the position is still worse. No one had gone to the witness box to say that so many trees were existing on the respective parcels of land. In the statement made before the LAO, each of the claimants respondents herein categorically stated that there were no trees, no wells no structures. PW2 who was examined as a common witness in all the OPs spoke for himself and about the trees that were existing on his land. He did not say a word about the trees on others' land. Burden undoubtedly lay on them to establish that there were trees and the compensation was disallowed without justification. But, they were content with making a reference to the trees in the claim statement and left it at that. As already noticed, the reference Court relied upon the evidence of PW2 (claimant in OP 56 of 1988). There is no iota of evidence as regards the existence of trees in the other OPs. It is pertinent to mention that the claim statements insofar as they mention about the number of trees and the compensation thereof are found interpolated, though it is not clear at what stage, they were made. We are given to understand that an enquiry is pending on this and other allied aspects of the so-catted 'scam', and we do not, therefore consider it necessary or appropriate to dilate more on this aspect.
An insight into the details pertaining to the trees and compensation claimed reveals incongruous and wholly unreliable nature of claim.
OP 57 of 1988 :
Land acquired :
44 cents (less than half acre) Compensation awarded by Court :
Rs. 4.89 lakhs Compensation for trees :
Rs. 3.65 lakhs Land value claimed before LAO :
Rs. 2,000/- per cent i.e., Rs. 2 lakhs per acre Land value determined :
Rs. 3 lakhs per acre Number of trees & Compensation claimed & awarded per each tree Coconut 10 : Rs. 10,000/- Mango 15 : Rs. 15,000/- Sapota 5 : Rs. 3,000/- (actually Rs. 2,500/- was claimed) Palroyrah 50 : Rs. 500/-
26. In the claim statement, it is asserted that the land was being cultivated with sugarcane, paddy etc., two times in a year with tank water. If that version is correct, there could not have been so many fruit bearing trees on the land. In any case, in the statement, given before the LAO, it was categorically admitted that there were no trees.OP No. 60 of 1988
Land acquired :
0.49 cents Compensation for trees :
Rs. 2.75 lakhs Mango trees (15) (15 year old) :
Rs. 15,000/- each awarded
27. In the statement given before the LAO, it was stated that there were no trees, wells and huts. In the protest application, there is no mention of trees and only land is mentioned. In the claim statement, there was similar assertion as regards cultivation as in OP 57 of 1988.
OP No .61 of l988 Land acquired :
0.33 cents Compensation awarded by Court :
Rs. 2.43 lakhs Compensation awarded for trees :
Rs. 1.50 lakhs Coconut (15) (aged 12 years) :
Rs. 10,000/- per each awarded
28. There was no mention of trees in the protest application. In the statement given before LAO, it was specifically stated that there were no trees, wells and huts. In the claim statement, there was similar assertion as regards cultivation as in OP 57 of 1988.OP No.68 of 1988
Land acquired :
0.04 cents (about 192 sq. yds.,) Compensation awarded by Court :
Rs. 98,760/-
Compensation for trees :
Rs. 86,760/-
Coconut trees (2) :
Rs. 10,000/- each Sapota (5) :
Rs. 2,500/- each Gold flower (Sampangi) (5) :
Rs. 10,000/-
Palmyrah (10) :
Rs. 500/-
29. In the protest application and in the statement given before LAO, there is no mention of trees and only land is mentioned.
30. The falsity of the claim is too palpable and obvious. The aforementioned trees are said to be existing on an extent of Ac.0.04 cents equivalent to 192 sq.yds. Yet, the reference Court unhesitatingly awarded whatever compensation was claimed for the trees.
31. The tenuous reasoning given by the learned Judge that there was no rebuttal evidence or cross examination, does not hold good in the above OPs., as there was no evidence by or on behalf of the claimants in any of the OPs other than OP 56 of 1988 as regards the particulars of the trees and the income therefrom.
To summarise:
Neither the fact that in the Award or even in the agreement of sale (Ex.A1) relied upon by the Subordinate Judge, no trees were noted nor the fact that there could not have been so many trees on small extents of cultivated lands had put the learned Judge on guard as to the veracity of their claims. Interpolations and corrections in material particulars in various claim petitions did not evoke an iota of doubt in the mind of the learned Judge. The discrepancies in value claimed by various claimants did not even engage the attention of the learned Judge. Whatever PW2 stated in his evidence was taken as gospel truth on the ostensible ground that rebuttal evidence was not adduced, what is more, whereas PW2 (claimant in OP 56 of 1988) claimed compensation at Rs. 10,000/- per gold-flower tree as per his claim statement and Rs.8,000/ - in his deposition, the Court thought it fit to award compensation at Rs,60,000/- per tree.
32. Although PW2 did not speak to the existence of trees on others' lands forming part of this batch, yet the claims of others were accepted without demur. The Subordinate Judge conveniently omitted to observe the principle that the burden lies on the claimants to produce convincing evidence and that the intrinsic worth of the evidence should be tested by well-known principles governing the appreciation of evidence. A reasonable doubt ought to have been entertained regarding the genuineness of the claim and correctness of the version put forward by PW2 and his evidence without any further corroboration ought not to have been accepted unreservedly. Even the original records of the Land Acquisition Officer such as statements made before him and protest applications were not verified or at any rate, not referred to at all and they were simply ignored. Considerations of public interest were blatantly forsaken. The result is complete miscarriage of justice and arbitrary and unwarranted enhancement of compensation especially for the trees under the facade of judicial order passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
33. Viewed from any angle, we cannot sustain the awards in each of these cases. As regards the compensation for trees, we are fully convinced that there were no trees at all in existence. In any case, no compensation can be awarded for the trees separately. The judgments under appeal are therefore, set aside. However, the value of the land acquired is fixed at Rs.28,000/- instead of Rs.18,500/- per acre awarded by the LAO. The respondents are entitled to the statutory benefits on the compensation as determined above. The compensation awarded for trees is deleted. Thus, the appeals filed by the State are substantially allowed. We make no order as to costs. Notice to the Counsel be served after the appeals are registered.
34. Before parting with the case, we must say that much can be said about the manner in which the Land Acquisition cases were conducted on behalf of the State. The whole thing starting from the preparation of counter to the claim statement to the adduction of evidence was taken too casually and lightly. The Officer who passed the award or inspected the land were not examined. The evidence of RW1 who is a clerk in the RDO's Office was practically of no use. There was no cross-examination on crucial documents forming part of the record. The trial Court in arriving at its finding unduly pressed into service some deficiencies and lapses eschewing the principle that the burden lies on the claimants and the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants shall be examined and appreciated on its own worth in proper perspective.