O. JANARDHAN REDDY AND ORS.versusTHE SPL. DY. COLLECTOR, L.A. UNIT-IV LMD, KARIMNAGAR, A.P. AND ORS.

                 0. JANARDHAN REDDY AND ORS.                                   A
                                     v.
          THE SPL. DY. COLLECTOR, L.A. UNIT-IV LMD,
                 KARIMNAGAR, A.P. AND ORS.

                         SEPTEMBER 30, 1994                                    B
         (K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.)

      Land Acquisition Act 1894 :

      Land Acquisition-:Agricultural land with inigation wells-Acquisition C
of-Compensatiolt-fJetermination of market value-Held the inigation well
in an acquired agricultural land cannot .have a vame apart from the vahle of
the agricultural land itself-Where compensation was enhanced on such a
basis by Civil Court and High Court, grant of further enhanced by compen-
sation-By Supreme Court-Held unwammted.                                      D

      Several extents of agricultural lands belonging to the appellants were
acquired. In some of those agricultural lands, there were Irrigation wells,
as well. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded separate compensation for
the agricultural lands and irrigation wells. The nature of crops grown on
the lands was made the basis to determine the market value of agricultural     E
lands while estimate of the cost of constrnctlon of each Irrigation well
prepared by the Public Works Department was made the basis to deter-
mine the market value of Irrigation wells. However, on reference, the Civil
Court enhanced not only the market value of lands but also the market
value of some of the irrigation welhi according to the cost of constrnctlon    F
of each of them as estimated by a retired Town Planning Supervisor, as
against their market value determined by the Land Acquisition omcer on
the basis of their estimates prepared by the Public Works Departinent and
or the remaining Irrigation wells by Increasing their market value as
determined by the Land Acquisition Officer by 75 per cent. The said award
of the Civil Court was. questioned by the Land Acquisition Officer in an       G
appeal before the High Court. The market value of the agricultural lands
as enhanced by the award of the Civil Court was not Interfered with by the
High Court. As regards market value of Irrigation welt.s enhanced by the
Civil Court, the High Court found that such enhanced market value for
the wells ought not to have been given by the .Civil Court on the basis of     H
                                     103
    104                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP.4 S.C.R.

A estimates of costs of wells prepared by a retired Town Planning Super-
    visor. Consequently, it refused to uphold the enhanced market value given
    for the irrigation wells by the Civil Court. Yet, on its own, the High Court
    enhanced the market value of the irrigation wells by 75 per cent of their
    market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer finding justifica-
    tion for such enhancement on the basis of another award of the Civil Court
B   wherein such enhancement for the market value of the irrigation wells had
    been given.

           Being dissatisfied with the enhanced compensation granted by the
    High Court the land owners filed the present appeal which was restricted
C   to the consideration of grant of enhanced compensation for their irrigation
    wells. It was contended on their behalf that when the Civil Court had
    determined the market value of the irrigation wells on the basis of estimate
    of cost of each well prepared by a private engineer with reference to
    prevailing construction cost on the basis of the data of Public Works
    Department and awarded compensation therefor, the High Court ought
D   not have interfered with the compensation so awarded by the Civil Court
    for such irrigation wells.

           Dismissing the appeal, this Court

E         HELD : 1. Since estimated construction costs of irrigation wells of
    agricultural lands cannot form the basis for awarding compensation for
    such irrigation wells independently of the compensation awardable for the
    agricnltural lands for the benefit of which such wells existed, the
    appellants' claim for grant of enhanced compensation for the irrigation
    wells reference to estimated costs of construction of such wells prepared
F   by engineers, do not commend acceptance. [108-B-C]

           2. The advantage which an agricultural land may have because of the
     irrigation facility it had from the irrigation well, could only enhance the
     value of agricultural land depending upon the water yield from the well.
     Again when the agricultural land, the irrigation of which was possible from
G    the. water of the irrigation well, is acquired, the value of the land so
     acquired will have to be determined taking into consideration the Irriga-
     tion facility it had from the well. In this sitnation the irrigation well in an
     acquired agricultural land, cannot have a valne apart from the value of
     the agricultural land itself. The Land Acquisition Officer, the Gvil Court
H    and the High Court, when they determined the market value of the
        OJ. REDDYv. SPL. DY. COLLECTOR [VENKATACHALA,J.]               105

irrigation wells and awarded compensation to the owners of those wells, A
having determined the market value of the acquired agricultural lands on
th~ basis of natural of crops grown in them obviously taking into con·
sideration, the water facility they had from the irrigation wells situated, in
them, they have proceeded on a misconception that the market value of the
irrigation wells had to be determined according to their construction costs B
and compensation was payable for them under the Act independently of
the compensation payable for the agricultural lands. [109-C to El

        3. As the award of compensation for the irrigation wells of the
appellants by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Civil Court and the High
Court was, in itself wholly unwarranted, question of granting further          C
enhanced compensation for irrigation wells of the appellants situated in
their acquired agricnltnral lands cannot arise. (109-F]

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5283 of
1992.
                                                                               D
     From the Judgment and Order dated 19.6.90 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in A No. 2234 of 1986.

     K. Madhava Reddy, D. Prakash Reddy and Vimal Dave for the
Appellants,
                                                                               E
     Guniur Prabhakar and Ms. Suman Bala Rastogi (NP) for the
Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      VENKATACHALA, J. In this appeal by special leave, directed               F
against the Judgment and Decree dated June 19, 1990 in Appeal No. 2234
of 1986 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, enhanced
compensation for irrigation wells of the agricultural lands acquired under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 • 'the Act' is claimed by the owners of those
lands - the appellants.                                                        G
      Several extents of agricultural lands comprised in different survey
numbers of Nedunoor Village. Karimnagar District of the State of Andhra
Pradesh were required for submergence under the waters of Manero Dam.
Those agricultural lands were acquired pursuant to Notification published
in the State Gazette dated February 2, 1979, as required by Section 4(1) H
    106                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   of the Act. The agricultural lands so acquired, were dry lands, single crop
    wet lands, and double crop wet lands. In some of those agricultural lands,
    there were irrigation wells, as well.

           The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), by an award made under
    section 11 of the Act determined the market value of the said agricultural
B   lands and the said irrigation wells separately and awarded compensation
    payable thereunder, to the concerned owners of the acquired lands. Nature
    of crops grown on tire lands, that is, dry crop, wet single crop or wet double
    crop while formed the basis for the LAO to determine the market value
    of the agricultural lands, estimate of the cost of construction of each
C   irrigation well prepared by the Public Works Department formed the basis
    for the LAO to determine the market value of such irrigation wells.

          The Court of Subordinate Judge at Karimnagar, the Civil Court,
    which considered the question of enhanced compensation payable to the
D   owners for their agricultural lands and irrigation wells, on reference
    received by him under Section 18 of the Act, enhanced not only the market
    value of dry lands to Rs. 4,500 per acre, single crop wet lands to Rs. 7,500
    per acre, and double crop wet lands to Rs. 10,000 per acre as against the
    market value of Rs. 2,400 per acre, Rs. 5,400 per acre and Rs. 8,100 per
    acre respectively determined for such agricultural lands by the LAO, but
E   also enhanced the market value of some of the irrigation wells according
    to the cost of construction of each of them as estimated by a retired Town
    Planning Supervisor (P.W.3), as against their market value determined by
    the LAO on the basis of their estimates prepared by the Public Works
    Department, and of the remaining irrigation wells by increasing their
p   market value as determined by the LAO by 75 per cent. Consequently, the
    Civil Court made an award under Section 26 of the Act granting the
    enhanced market value of the acquired agricultural lands and enhanced
    market value of the irrigation wells, and further granting solatium on such
    market value at 30 per cent and interest on compensation at 9 per cent for
    the first year from the date of taking possession and for the subsequent
G   years upto the date of payment of compensation at the rate of 15 per cent
    per annum.

          But the said award of the Civil Court by which compensation payable
    for the acquired agricultural lands and irrigation wells had been enhanced,
H   was questioned by the LAO in an appeal filed against it before the High
      O.J. REDDYv. SPL. DY. COLLECTOR (VENKATACHALA, J.]                  107

Court. However, the market value of the agricultural lands, as enhanced A
by the award of the Civil Court was not interfered with by the High Court
on its view that the enhanced market value given by the Civil Court for
similar lands in its earlier two awards had been confirmed by it in appeals
filed therefrom and the decisions in those appeals had become final. When
it came to the market value of irrigation wells enhanced by the Civil Court,
                                                                             B
the High Court found that such enhanced market value for the wells ought
not to have been given by the Civil Court on the basis of estimates of costs
of wells prepared by a retired Town Planning Supervisor (P.W.3). Conse-
quently, it refused to uphold the enhanced market value given for the
irrigation wells by the Civil Court. Yet, on its own, the High Court en-
hanced the market value of the irrigation wells at 75 per cent of their C
market value determined by the LAO, finding justification for such enhan-
cement on the basis of another award of the Civil Court wherein such
 enhancement for the market value of the irrigation well had been given..
Thus by its Judgment and Decree, the High Court enhanced the compen-
 sation payable for the wells by 75 per cent of what was given for them by D
the LAO.

       The owners of the lands who were not satisfied with the enhanced
compensation granted by the High Court for their agricultural lands and
irrigation w~lls filed the present appeal by special leave agains: the judg-
ment and decree of the High Court seeking from this Court grant of further       E
enhanced compensation therefor. However, we are now concerned in this
appeal with enhanced compensation sought for irrigation wells, since at the
time of grant of leave, the appeal is restricted to the consideration of grant
of enhanced compensation to the appellants for their irrigation wells.
                                                                                 F
      The learned counsel for the appellants, the owners of the acquired
agricultural lands, contended that the High Court was unjustified in relying
upon the estimated costs of irrigation wells in the acquired appellants lands
prepared by the Public Works Department, for determining the market
value of those irrigation wells, when the Civil Court had rightly refused to G
rely upon such estimated costs. in the absence of records of such estimated
costs produced before it. According to the learned counsel, when the Civil
Court had determined the market value of the irrigation wells on the basis
of estimate of cost of each well prepared by a private engineer (P.W.3)
with reference to prevailing construction cost of the data of Public Works
Department and awarded compensation therefor, the High Court ought H
    108                   SUPREMECOURTREPORTS (1994]SUPP.4S.C.R.

A not to have interfered with the compensation so awarded by the Civil Court
    for such irrigation wells. The learned counsel, therefore, pleaded for grant
    by us, of enhanced compensation to the appellants for their irrigation wells
    in their acquired agricultural lands, according to the award made by the
    Civil Court.

B         Since estimated construction costs of irrigation wells of agricultural
    lands cannot form the basis for awarding compensation for such irrigation
    wells independently of the compensation awardable for the agricultural
    lands for the benefit of which such wells existed, the contentions raised by
    the learned counsel in support of the appellants claim for grant of en-
C   banced compensation for the irrigation wells with reference to estimated
    costs of construction of such wells prepared by engineers, do not commend
    acceptance.

          Irrigation wells for which enhanced compensation is sought in the
D   present appeal are admittedly those which existed in the acquired agricul-
    tural lands. for which er.hanced compensation is awarded by the Civil
    Court, and the High Court. Question of granting further enhanced com-
    pensation for the acquired agricultural lands by this Court in this appeal
    does not arise since this Court has ordered that consideration of this
    appeal shall be restricted to claim of the appellants for grant of enhanced
E   compensation for their irrigation wells.

           When agricultural lands are acquired under the Act, the owners of
    such lands or persons who have interest in them become entitled to
    payment of compensation awardable for such lands under the Act. The
F   main component of such compensation would be the market value of the
    acquired agricultural land. Market value of agricultural land has to be
    determined under the Act with reference to the date on which preliminary
    notification was published in the State Gazette proposing its acquisition
    and according to the price which a buyer interested in agriculture would
    have paid for it to the owner having regard to its soil, the irrigation and
G   other facilities, it commanded for its maximum utilisation for agricultural
    purposes. The highest factor that contributes to the market value of agricul-
    tural land, is the irrigation facility it commands, admits of no controversy.
    Irrigation facility commanded by the agricultural land is that water supply
    which it can command for corps to be grown in it. Sources of such water
H   supply, apart from rain water, may be river water, tank water, well water
         0.J. REDDYv. SPL DY. COLLECTOR [VENKATACHALA,J.]                   109

etc. Where river water or taol< water is unavailable or is insufficient for        A
cultivation of agricultural lands open irrigation wells are sunk. If the soil
of the land in which they are sunk is likely to cave in, the same will be
prevented by raising stone or brick or cement walls or by use of cement
rings. The yield of water in wells vary from well to well. Intensive cultivation
of agricultural land is done where the water yield of its irrigation well/wells    B
is high. Such irrigation wells, even if had been dug up and walled effective-
ly, may stop yielding water because of bore wells bored in the neighbouring
lands or some other natural causes such as drought. In such events, the
irrigation wells will become worthless. Hence, the advantage which an
agricultural land may have because of the irrigation facility it had from the
irrigation we!~ could only enhance the value of agricultural land depending        C
upon the water yield from the well. Again when the agricultural land, the
irrigation cif which was possible from the water of the irrigation well, is
acquired, the value of the land so acquired will have to be determined
taking into consideration the irrigation facility it had from the well. In this
situation the irrigation well in an acquired agricultural land, cannot have a      D
value apart from the value of the agricultural land itself. The LAO, the
Civil Court and High Court, when have determined the market value of
the irrigation wells and awarded compensation to the owners of those
wells, having determined the market value of the acquired agricultural
lands on the basis of nature of crops grown in them obviously taking into
consideration, the water facility they had from the irrigation wells situated,     E
in them, they have proceeded on a misconception that the market value of
the irrigation wells had to be d.eterrnined according to their construction
costs and compensation was payable for them under the Act independently
of the compensation payable for the agricultural lands. As the award of
compensation for the irrigation wells of the appellants by the LAO, the            F
Civil Court and the High Court was, in itself wholly unwarranted, question
of granting by us further enhanced compensation for irrigation wells of the
appellants situated in their acquired agricultural lands cannot arise. Hence,
this appeal of the appellants, the owners of the acquired agricultural lands,
must necessarily fail.
                                                                                   G
      In the result, we dismiss this appeal but without costs.

T.N.A.                                                      Appeal dismissed.