JUDGMENT
C.V. Ramulu, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the Special Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition Officer, SLBC, Devarakonda assailing the Award and Decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge at Nalgonda in O.P.No.S of 1988, dated 30-3-1994.
2. In order to consider as to whether the impugned Award suffers from any infirmities requiring our interference, few relevant facts leading to filing of this appeal may have to be noticed.
3. That, in all, an extent of Ac. 1.27 gts. of land and three wells in Survey Nos.l34/7, 195/3E and 194/3A situated at Gundlapalli Village of Nalgonda Mandal was acquired for a public purpose of formation of Srisailam Left Branch Canal. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published in the Gazette on 4-3-1987. The Land Acquisition Officer after following the prescribed procedure passed Award dated 19-9-1987 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.5,300/- per acre and also awarded compensation of Rs.82,759/- for the well in Sy.No. 134/7, Rs.49,640/- for the well in Sy.No.194/3A and Rs.53,570/- for the well in Sy.No.195/3E. Being dissatisfied with the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent-claimants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The reference was taken on file as O.P.No.5 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Nalgonda.
4. In support of their claim, the respondent-claimants examined P.Ws.l to 3 and on behalf of the Referring Officer, none was examined. On either side, no documentary evidence was let in. After appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the reference Court assessed and fixed the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.8,500/- per acre and Rs.1,91,005/- for the well in Sy .No. 134/7, Rs.1,19,290/- for the well in Sy.No.194/3A and Rs.1,50,000/- for the well in Sy.No.195/ 3A. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant contended that the reference Court has enhanced the market value of the land, relying only on the oral testimony of P.Ws.l to 3, from Rs.5,300/-to Rs.8,500/- per acre and also enhanced the compensation for the wells without there being any cogent and reliable evidence to that effect. The reference Court ought to have seen that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was just and reasonable. There is no rationale behind in fixing the market value of the land and the wells by the reference Court.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-claimants contended that since the Land Acquisition Officer also has not placed reliance on any documentary evidence, the only course left open for the reference Court, in the circumstances of the case, was to accept the oral testimony of P.Ws.l to 3.
7. We have gone through the impugned Award and also the entire evidence available on record.
8. Admittedly, this is a case where no documentary evidence has been placed before the Court either by the respondent-claimants or the appellant-Special Deputy Collector (LAO). Even the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was not marked, though it has no evidentiary value before the Court for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land. P.W.I is no other than Claimant No.6 in the O.P. He deposed that his land admeasuring Ac.2.30 gts in Sy.No.194 including agricultural well measuring 44′ depth, 60′ length and 45′ width was acquired. There are two bore pits in the said well of the depth of 80′ and 50′ respectively and he used to cultivate an extent of Ac.4.00 from water drawn from the said well. He further stated that the Engineering Department of SLBC estimated the cost of the well at Rs.1,19,289/-, whereas the Land Acquisition Officer awarded only Rs.49,640/-. P.W.2 is Claimant No.4. He deposed that his land and well situated in Sy. No. 134 were acquired by the Government. The well was 40′ depth, and 25′ length and 10′ width. The Engineering Department had estimated the cost of his well at Rs. 1.91,058/-, whereas the Land Acquisition Officer awarded only Rs.82,75 9/ – without assigning any reason. P.W.3 is Claimant No.l. He stated that his land and agricultural well of 50′ depth and 20’x12′ width and breadth situated in Sy.No. 195 were acquired. The department had estimated the value of the well at Rs. 1,50,000/-, but the Land Acquisition Officer awarded only Rs.53,700/- without assigning any reasons.
9. Absolutely, there is no evidence before the reference Court for enhancement of the market value of the land as well as wells, except the self-serving testimony of P.Ws.l to 3, who are claimants and interested witnesses. There is no discussion as to how the respondent-claimants are entitled for enhancement of the market value of the acquired land at Rs.8,500/- per acre instead of Rs.5,300/- per acre as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Further, there is also no discussion as to how the respondent-claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation for the wells. It is well settled principle of law that no compensation can be awarded both for the land and wells. In this regard, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant placed strong reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in O. Janardhan Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector , wherein it was held that while estimating the market value of the acquired land, the estimated construction cost of the wells cannot be separately assessed apart from assessment of market value of the land and that the market value of the land has to be assessed having regard to the availability of irrigation facility on the land and where wells are available as source of irrigation, regard be had to the yield of the water from the wells. He also relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Special Deputy Collector v. G. Nagabushanam (DB), wherein it was held as under :
8. The only other question which survives for consideration is regarding the valuation of the wells, which are found in the lands belonging to Claimants 6 and 7. In O. Janardhan Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector , it is held that while estimating the market value of the acquired land, the estimated construction cost of the wells cannot be separately assessed apart from assessment of market value of the land and that the market value of the land has to be assessed having regard to the availability of irrigation facility on the land and where wells are available as source of irrigation, regard be had to the yield of the water from the wells. Having regard to this decision of the Supreme Court, the award of compensation separately for the wells based on the estimated cost of construction cannot be held to be proper. It may also be noted that in the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that Claimants 6 and 7 have been deriving any independent income from the said wells. For the aforesaid reasons, the enhancement of compensation granted by the lower Court with regard to the two wells belonging to Claimants 6 and 7 is unsustainable and it is accordingly set aside. It follows from this that the lands where these two wells are located i.e., Ac. 1.32 guntas in Survey No,524 and Ac. 1,32 guntas in Survey No.525 belonging to the 6th claimant and an extent of Ac. 1.30 guntas in Survey No.526 belonging to the 7th claimant should be treated and valued as wet lands and compensation for the said lands should be awarded at the rate of Rs. 15,0007-per acre as fixed by us. Even though the Land Acquisition Officer was not justified in awarding compensation separately for the two wells in question, we are not, however, disturbing the award of the Land Acquisition Officer in this respect as the same is binding on the Government.
10. Learned Government Pleader also placed reliance upon a reported judgment of the Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu , wherein, while referring to the judgment in O. Janardhan Reddy’s case (supra) held as under :
…It is now settled law that when the water is being used from the tank and the well for cultivation of the land, no separate value could be granted towards the tank and the well. This Court elaborately considered this aspect of the matter in the case of O. Janardhan Reddy v. Spl Dy. Collector, L.A., (supra). Accordingly, we hold that the respondents are not entitled to the separate value of Rs.1,69,890/- towards the value of the tank and the well….
11. Whereas, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants placed strong reliance on the judgment reported in Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P. , and drawn attention of the Court to Paragraph-7 thereof, which reads as under :
7. Next submission of learned Senior Counsel is that the claimants were entitled to separate compensation for the Tube Well as well as for the structure standing on the land and the High Court committed error while denying compensation for the above items, although the Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation for those items. We find substance in the argument. However, learned Counsel appearing for the Parishad argued that the claimants were not entitled to compensation for value of land and building separately and for that purpose cited a decision of this Court in Ratan Kumar Tandon and Ors. v. State of U.P. 1997 (2) SCC 161 = 1998 (1) ALD (SCSN) 25. We find that the said decision is distinguishable. In that case we find that there was capitalization of the value of land and structure and, therefore, the claimants were not given separate compensation for land and building. Here we find that there was no capitalization of value of land and structure by the Land Acquisition officer in his award. On the other hand, Land Acquisition Officer has given compensation separately for the land, building and Tube Well. In that view of the matter claimants are entitled to separate compensation for land, Tube Well and structure.
12. This is an unfortunate case where there is no evidence as to how the compensation for the land and wells was fixed separately. However, there is some discussion in the impugned Award that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired land and well separately taking into consideration the sale statistics for the preceding three years from the date of draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Therefore, it must be deemed that the compensation was fixed for the lands and the wells separately.
13. Where capitalization method has been adopted for the value of the land, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation for the wells located therein (See Tejumal Bhojwani’s case (supra)). Likewise, when land and building are acquired by a notification, the claimants are not entitled to separate valuation of the building and the land. They are entitled to compensation of either of the two methods, but not both. If the building is assessed, it is well settled law that the measure of compensation be based on either the rent received from the property with suitable multiplier or the value of the building is the proper method of valuation. Separate valuation of the land and the building is not permissible. See Ratan Kumar Tandon v. State of U.P. 1997 (2) SCC 161 : 1998 (1) ALD (SCSN) 25. In view of the ratio laid down in the above cases, separate compensation cannot be given for the wells, once the compensation is fixed for the land, provided capitalization method was adopted for the purpose of fixing the market value of the land.
14. Now, the question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether in the absence of any acceptable evidence, the reference Court was justified in enhancing the compensation for the land and the wells, assuming that separate compensation was fixed for the land and wells and capitalization method was not followed ?
15. As noticed above, in this case, absolutely there is no documentary evidence for the purpose of enhancement of market value of the land as well as the wells, except the self-serving testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3, who are claimants and interested witnesses. Further, there is no discussion in the impugned Award as to how the respondent- -claimants are entitled for enhancement of the market value of the acquired land at Rs.8,500/- instead of Rs.5,300/- per acre as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The basis for enhancement of compensation for the wells is only a Xerox copy of the estimation alleged to have been given by the Executive Engineer, which was neither marked nor can be admitted in evidence. Therefore, the impugned Award requires our interference and thus it is liable to be set aside.
16. Accordingly, we allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned Award of the reference Court and confirm the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The respondent-claimants are entitled for market value of the land at Rs.5,300/- per acre and compensation of Rs.82,759/- for the well in Sy.No. 134/7, Rs.49,640/- for the well in Sy.No. 194/3A and Rs.53,570/- for the well in Sy.No. 195/3E as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The respondent-claimants are also entitled for all the statutory benefits including interest on 30% solatium from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs.