Judgment : (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) Quite a large extent of land in different survey numbers in Adrial Village of Manthani Mandal, Karimnagar District was acquired by the Government for the benefit of Singareni Collieries Company Limited. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), was published in the year 1985. In the course of award enquiry, the land owners claimed compensation @ Rs.2 lakhs per acre. Separate compensation was claimed for toddy and senahi trees, that were existing over the land. The Land Acquisition Officer passed awards in the year 1987, fixing the market value for the acquired lands, at Rs.7,000/- per acre for those, in category 2 and Rs.6,000/- per acre, under category 3. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought references under Section 18 of the Act. References were made and they were taken up as, O.P.Nos.76, 78 of 1988 and 10 of 1989 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli. Through separate orders, the trial Court fixed the market value at Rs.30,000/- per acre in O.P.Nos.76 and 78 of 1988, and Rs.50,000/- per acre in O.P.No.10 of 1989. It has also awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre towards subsoil mineral rights. The statutory benefits were extended. The claimants filed A.S.No.1632, 1633 and 1634 of 2001, seeking further enhancement of the compensation. The Singareni Collieries, on the other hand, filed A.S.Nos.686, 687 and 688 of 2001, feeling aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation by the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as claimants, Land Acquisition Officer, and the Singareni Collieries. The claimants submit that the acquired lands were valuable and fertile in nature, and that the transactions, that took place many years prior to the acquisition, disclose that the market value is more than Rs.1 lakh per acre. They submit that under Ex.A-22, of the year 1982, and Exs.A-23 and A-24, of the year 1985, the market value of the land in the same Village at that point of time, ranged between Rs.1,23,000 to Rs.1,84,000/- and that the trial Court ought to have fixed the market value accordingly. They submit that the fixation of the market value at Rs.30,000/- per acre even by adding a sum of Rs.15,000/-, towards subsoil rights, is too meagre and contrary to the evidence on record. They submit that the fixation of the market value at Rs.30,000/- per acre even by adding a sum of Rs.15,000/-, towards subsoil rights, is too meagre and contrary to the evidence on record. The grievance of the Singareni Collieries is not much about the market value, determined by the trial Court for the land, but the award of Rs.15,000/- per acre towards subsoil mineral rights. They submit that once the land, in its entirety is acquired, there cannot be any separate fixation or determination of value for the subsoil minerals or surface rights. Arguments on behalf of the claimants were advanced by Sri K. Bhasker, Sri I. Aga Reddy, and Sri Y. Rama Rao, learned counsel. They submit that the acquisition by the Singareni Collieries is in such a large scale, that Villages together are displaced and the people have to migrate to different places. They contend that the market value of the land, several years prior to the date of acquisition; was in the range of Rs.1,23,000/- to Rs.1,84,000/- per acre, and ignoring the same, the trial Court adopted an un-imaginary figure of Rs.30,000/- per acre. Learned counsel submit that Exs.A-22, A-24, (in O.P.No.10 of 1989), and other documents, were proved without leaving any pale of doubt, and that similar documents were filed in other OPs also. As regards the objection raised by the Singareni Collieries about fixation of separate value for subsoil mineral rights, they contend that, when the very basis for acquiring the land is that there are deposits of coal, award of such compensation cannot be said to be contrary to law. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the Singareni Collieries. He submits that the subsoil rights always vest in the State, and the trial Court was not justified in awarding separate compensation for such rights. He contends that with the acquisition, the land, with all its physical and legal attributes vests in the State and thereby in the beneficiary, and that there would not be any scope for differentiating subsoil or surface rights in respect of the acquired land. He has referred to the various provisions of the A.P (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, in support of his contention. Reliance is also placed upon certain precedents. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has advanced arguments on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. He has referred to the various provisions of the A.P (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, in support of his contention. Reliance is also placed upon certain precedents. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has advanced arguments on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. In relation to the lands of different survey numbers of Manthani Village, three separate awards came to be passed and accordingly three references were made on a request made by the claimants. The trial Court took up the matters as O.P.Nos.76, 78 of 1988 and 10 of 1989. Though the trial in the OPs was separate and evidence was some-what different, the discussion and determination proceeded almost on the same lines. The following points were framed in the O.Ps. In O.P.No.76 of 1988: 1) Whether the Land Acquisition Officer granted inadequate compensation to the acquired lands and acted contrary to the principles of law? And if so, whether the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is liable to be modified? 2) Whether the claimants established that the market value of the acquired lands are fetching higher values than the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer and whether they are entitled to enhanced compensation? 3) Whether the claimants are entitled to claim sub-soil mineral rights, if so, at what rate? In O.P.No.78 of 1988: 1) Whether the Land Acquisition Officer has not granted reasonable and adequate compensation to the acquired lands? 2) Whether the claimants are entitled to claim more compensation than the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer? 3) Whether the claimants are entitled to subsoil mineral rights and if so, whether they are entitled to claim compensation towards subsoil mineral rights? In O.P.No.10 of 1989: 1) Whether the award No.21, dt 2-5-1986 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not reasonable and adequate? 2) Whether the claimants are entitled to get enhanced compensation, if so, at what rate? 3) Whether the claimants are entitled to subsoil mineral rights to the acquired lands? In O.P.No.76 of 1988, PWs 1 to 7 and RWs 1 to 4 were examined, and Exs.A-1 to A-24 and B-1 to B-4 were filed. In O.P.No.78 of 1988, PWs 1 to 12 and RWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-29 and B-1 to B-5 were filed. In O.P.No.10 of 1989, PWs 1 to 11 and RWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exs. In O.P.No.78 of 1988, PWs 1 to 12 and RWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-29 and B-1 to B-5 were filed. In O.P.No.10 of 1989, PWs 1 to 11 and RWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-30 and B-1 to B-4 were filed. The trial Court fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre in O.P.Nos.76 and 78 of 1988 and awarded Rs.15,000/- per acre towards subsoil mineral rights and Rs.50,000/- per acre in O.P.No.10 of 1989 and Rs.15,000/- per acre towards subsoil mineral rights. In view of the extensive submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration are, 1) Whether the market value fixed by the trial Court for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.50,000/- per acre, respectively, is adequate, or whether it deserves to be enhanced further. 2) Whether the award of compensation for subsoil mineral rights, independently, can be sustained in law. The Singareni Collieries is a Public Sector Undertaking, fully owned by the State of Andhra Pradesh. It has coal mines in different parts of the State. Wherever it is found that there exist deposits of coal and it is feasible to excavate the same, steps are initiated for acquiring the land. Unlike many other minerals, such as granite; which are available mostly on the surface, the deposits of coal exist very deep in the land. Such layers are spread horizontally. The area to the extent it is possible for carrying out mining operations is acquired by taking recourse to the procedure under the Act. For all practical purposes, the acquisition of land for the purpose of Singareni Collieries is on par with other acquisitions. The only difference, if at all, is that the area is generally vast, and justification for acquisition would be only, when there exist deposits of coal. In the context of fixation of market value, various parameters enunciated in Section 23 of the Act need to be kept in mind. The geological features of land are uniform, except on certain minor aspects. In the context of fixation of market value, various parameters enunciated in Section 23 of the Act need to be kept in mind. The geological features of land are uniform, except on certain minor aspects. However, the factors, such as, a) the location of the land, b) present use to which it is being put, c) use to which it is capable of being put to, d) effect of acquisition upon the interests of the owner and in the immediate neighbourhood, e) inconvenience or hardship, which the owner of the land would be put to, on account of the acquisition, including compulsion to change his residence or places of business or even the cessation of his primary activity, such as agriculture; become important, in the context of determination of the market value of the land. In addition to that, the nature and type of formation of land would become relevant, depending on the purpose, for which it is acquired. For instance, if the purpose of acquisition is to undertake construction or to provide house sites, the value of the land would be more, in case the soil is hard, because the expenditure for providing foundation is little less. In contrast, the lands with loose soil are not better suited for that purpose and such a factor would certainly become relevant in the context of determining the market value. From the point of view of ordinary activity also, the nature of deposits existing on the surface or the subsoil of a land would play an important role. A rocky soil may be not of much utility for agriculture or ordinary construction. However, if the rock or the mineral is of high value, that would certainly have a direct bearing upon the cost of the land. Similarly, if the land contains deposits of rare minerals or precious stones, that would add to the market value, notwithstanding the fact that except for the deposits, the land may not be of much use. Left to itself, Singareni Collieries did not raise any objection for fixation of the market value at Rs.30,000/- and Rs.50,000/- per acre, respectively, though it has opposed for further enhancement. Its principal grievance is about the award of Rs.15,000/- per acre, towards subsoil mineral rights. Left to itself, Singareni Collieries did not raise any objection for fixation of the market value at Rs.30,000/- and Rs.50,000/- per acre, respectively, though it has opposed for further enhancement. Its principal grievance is about the award of Rs.15,000/- per acre, towards subsoil mineral rights. Reliance is placed upon Section 24 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, which is to the effect that minerals under the earth and deposits on the land; would vest in the Government. However, if one looks at the scheme of the Act, Section 24 occurs, in Chapter 5, which deals with the creation of rights in respect of ‘Government land’ in favour of third parties. Even while the ownership of the land remains with the Government, private individuals are accorded permission to undertake activities, such as agriculture, subject to certain conditions. It is in this context, that the provision mandates that the subsoil mineral rights would continue to vest in the Government. It is difficult to extend the same legal regime to the lands, which are held absolutely by private individuals. It is urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the Singareni Collieries that the nomenclature of a Chapter is not immediately relevant, and relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court. The ratio laid down therein is in a different context. When the Act is divided into various parts, each part deals with separate set of circumstances and prescribes a different legal regime, one just cannot ignore such compartmentalization. If argument of the learned Senior Counsel is to be accepted, the provisions of an Act have to be read irrespective of the chapters, in which they occur, and that would lead to almost a pell-mell. The structure of an Act has its own significance. This is particularly so, in the matter of understanding or interpreting non-obstante clauses mentioned in the relevant provisions. While the non-obstante clause that occurs in a provision at the threshold of the Act would have a limited purport, the one, occurring at the end would push aside, all the inconsistencies, that occur in the earlier portion of the Act and attach primacy, to the concerned provision. Further, there are several Acts, which deal with different classes of subjects, may be of the same species. If the classification is ignored and everything is treated as one, it may lead to improper generalization or over simplification. Further, there are several Acts, which deal with different classes of subjects, may be of the same species. If the classification is ignored and everything is treated as one, it may lead to improper generalization or over simplification. The intention of the Legislature to accord differential treatment to the myriad circumstances covered by the concerned piece of legislation would be defeated. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (2005(12) SCC 1). That was a case in which the land was held by individuals as tenure holders or sub-tenure holders and on its being acquired, claim was made not only in respect of the land, but also for the minor minerals, that are available in the land. The Supreme Court took note of the relevant provisions, such as Sections 41, 42 and 60(c) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act and the Punjab Minor Mineral Rules 1934. The purport of those provisions was that unless the record discloses otherwise, the forest growth and water upon the lands would be deemed to have vested in the Government. In the instant case, the land is not held on the basis of any tenure, nor were the claimants, tenure holders. They are the absolute owners of the land. The mere fact that mineral can be extracted only with the permission of the appropriate Government under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder; does not make the owner of the land, totally irrelevant. The effect of those provisions would be that, even while being the owner of the land, and the minerals therein, the land holder cannot extract the minerals except under a valid permission or lease granted by the appropriate Government. The fact that the owner of the land would have the right upon the minerals therein, can be discerned from other instances also. If the hand, in which the minerals are available, belongs to Government, the lease to extract the same can straightaway be granted by the concerned authorities. In contrast, if the mineral bearing land is owned by a private individual, it is only with the consent of, or transfer from such owner, that the Government can grant lease for extracting the minerals to a third party. In contrast, if the mineral bearing land is owned by a private individual, it is only with the consent of, or transfer from such owner, that the Government can grant lease for extracting the minerals to a third party. The question of granting mining lease in respect of a private land, without the consent of the owner does not arise. Recently, in Threesiamma Jacob and others v. Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology and others (Civil Appeal No.4549 of 2000), the Hon’ble Supreme Court took the view that the subsoil rights vest with the owner of the land. The contention of the Kerala Government that the rights of ryotwari pattadars are only confined to the surface, was repelled. This discussion is being undertaken only to drive home the point, that, in case the land contains any valuable minerals, or other items, such as rare timber or good ecological features, that would certainly be a factor, to be taken into account, while determining the market value. Having said this, this Court intends to make it clear that the determination of market value for a land is a compendious exercise, culminating in the indication of the amount, that represents the market value. The exercise would take in its fold, the various components. There cannot be any division or sub-division of the components. For example, the market value cannot be indicated separately for the land, the value referable to severance, the component representing the advantages, location or the potential of the land; and the like. The Land Acquisition Officer or for that matter, the Civil Court are required to take all these aspects into account, and indicate a figure. Once a figure is indicated, it cannot be supplemented with other individual factors. One of the points framed is about the validity of the exercise undertaken by the trial Court in separately awarding the amounts towards subsoil mineral rights. In this regard, the very use of expression “subsoil rights” becomes a bit incompatible. The reason is that once the land, in its entirety is acquired, the subsoil rights would no longer inhere in the land owner. The agency for whom it is acquired would get the absolute control over the land with all legal consequences and would be entitled to put it to any use of its choice, may be in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The agency for whom it is acquired would get the absolute control over the land with all legal consequences and would be entitled to put it to any use of its choice, may be in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Even where a land is impregnated with valuable minerals, the agency for whose benefit it is acquired may not immediately extract them. At the same time, the erstwhile owner would not be entitled to lay any claim for such minerals. Therefore, the approach of the trial Court, in separately indicating the component of compensation, in the form of subsoil mineral rights cannot be countenanced. However, the fact that the land is possessed of minerals, is not a factor, that can be ignored, particularly when the purpose of acquisition is to extract that very mineral. It must go into the compendious process of fixing the market value. To demonstrate: if two different extents of identical land with same market value exist, the one, that consists of valuable mineral would certainly become costlier, correspondingly, particularly when the acquisition is for that very mineral. Therefore, we hold that though it is not proper for a Land Acquisition Officer or a Civil Court to separately award the compensation towards subsoil mineral rights, it is permissible to take that factor into account, while determining the market value. Point No.1 is about the adequacy or otherwise of the market value determined by the trial Court. As is too well-known, hardly there exists any fixed and foolproof formula in this process. The Court is guided mostly by the factors, which are indicated in previous paragraphs. The comparable sales in the immediate neighbourhood, anterior to the date of acquisition become very relevant. The record discloses that Exs.A-22 is a sale deed of the year 1984 and Exs.A-23 and 24 are of the year 1985. While the first document is two years anterior to the date of acquisition, the other two documents preceded by one year. Under Ex.A-22 10 guntas of land was sold, for a consideration of Rs.1 lakh per acre. Under Exs.A-23 and A-24 also, the extents were about 10 guntas; and the consideration indicated was Rs.1,84,000/- and Rs.1,24,000/-, respectively, per acre. It is evident that within one year, from the date of execution of Ex.A-22, there is phenomenal increase in the price. Under Ex.A-22 10 guntas of land was sold, for a consideration of Rs.1 lakh per acre. Under Exs.A-23 and A-24 also, the extents were about 10 guntas; and the consideration indicated was Rs.1,84,000/- and Rs.1,24,000/-, respectively, per acre. It is evident that within one year, from the date of execution of Ex.A-22, there is phenomenal increase in the price. Since they are in respect of small extents, the same price cannot be adopted for larger extents. Exs.A-23 and A-24 are one year anterior in point of time, and they would certainly provide guidance. Even if the lower of the figures i.e. Rs.1,23,000/- per acre covered by Ex.A-24 is taken into account and 1/3rd is deducted, the market value would come to Rs.80,000/- per acre. The additional advantage for the land on account of coal deposits cannot be ignored. Though Rs.15,000/- cannot be awarded separately, a sum of Rs.10,000/- can be added to the market value on that count. The result would be that the market value for the land can be fixed at Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only) per acre for the lands covered by O.P.Nos.76 and 78 of 1988. We award Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) per acre for the lands covered by O.P.No.10 of 1989. It is needless to mention that the claimants shall be entitled to the statutory benefits on the enhanced amount. Accordingly, A.S.Nos.1632, 1633 and 1634 of 2001 are allowed to the extent indicated above, and A.S.Nos.686, 687, 688 and 2482 of 2001 are dismissed. The compensation payable to the respective claimants shall be deposited directly into their accounts. The Land Acquisition Officer or the Trial Court, as the case may be, shall not undertake any deductions towards income tax, and it is left open to the concerned authorities to take steps in accordance with law. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these appeals shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.