JUDGMENT The land of the claimant bearing Sy. No. 117 of Hebbal Village of Davanagere Taluk measuring 4 acres 23 guntas was acquired for public purpose in the year 1974 by preliminary notification. The Land Acquisition Officer ('LAO' for short) assessed the value per acre at Rs. 3,250/-. The Reference Court held that out of 4 acres 23 guntas, 2 acre is garden land and granted compensation at Rs. 35,000/- per acre. The rest of the land is treated as dry land and granted compensation of Rs. 7,500/- per acre and solatium at 30% and interest at 9% p.a., on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of deposit. 2. The record and the evidence discussed by the Reference Court disclose that there is a well situate in Sy. No. 117. The total extent of Sy. No. 117 is 5 acres, out of which 4 acres 23 guntas is acquired, including the well. There are 23 tamarind trees, 26 mango trees and 6 cashew trees existing in the land acquired by the State. The Land Acquisition Officer has granted separate compensation to the trees in a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The entire extent of land is owned by the same person and there is a benefit of well irrigation to Sy. No. 117. The classification of two acres of land as garden land and the rest of the land as dry land by the Reference Court appears to be untenable. 3. The contention of the learned Government Advocate that the claimant has not proved that the well had sufficient potential of irrigating the entire extent of 4 acres 23 guntas of land is untenable. Primarily, it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of preliminary notification to assess and collect necessary material with regard to potential of the well. In that behalf, aid of Geologist should have been taken. The LAO has recorded the fact of existence of the well but the potential of the well to irrigate the total extent of the land has not been stated either way. The contention that the RTO extracts produced does not show the utilisation of the well water to the other extent of the land is again flawed logic. The LAO has recorded the fact of existence of the well but the potential of the well to irrigate the total extent of the land has not been stated either way. The contention that the RTO extracts produced does not show the utilisation of the well water to the other extent of the land is again flawed logic. When the entire extent of land is owned by the same person in the same survey number and when the existence of a well in the land is proved, the inference in favour of the claimant is that well water could be utilised for the entire extent of land. There is a grave lapse on the part of the LAO at the earliest point of time in not collecting necessary evidence to find out the potential of the well in question. Now at this length of time, it is impossible to hold an enquiry and to find out the potential and capacity of the well since it is not in existence. The fact that the well exists in Sy. No. 117 should go in favour of the claimant for an inference that the well water could be used for the entire extent of land. The assessment of the value of the garden land at Rs. 35,000/- is sound and proper and in my opinion; the same amount is to be awarded to the entire extent" ·of 4 acres 23 guntas without any discrimination. 4. According to the Land Acquisition Officer, there is 56 fruit bearing trees and a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded. (The compensation award does not appear to relate to the yield of fruits). The said amount essentially represents the timber value and not with reference to yield and income. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the sum of Rs. 20,000/- granted towards standing trees is to be deleted from the compensation, is untenable. Regarding the rate of interest granted by the Reference Court, the same appears to be sound and proper. The higher interest rates by way of penalty under Sections 28 and 34 came to be introduced with effect from 30-4-1992 and this acquisition is much prior to amended provisions. Therefore, the interest awarded is just and proper. . 5. Accordingly, appeal is allowed as indicated above with proportionate costs.