Judgment L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The appellant is the owner of Ac.0-27 cents of land in Sy.No.369-1A of Samalkot village. The same was acquired by the Government for the purpose of excavation of Peddapuram drainage channel under Yeleru Reservoir Project. Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 25.09.1982. The Land Acquisition Officer i.e., respondent herein passed award on 16.12.1983. It was observed that there are 28 coconut trees in the land of the appellant and according to the information gathered by him, the density of the said coconut trees on each acre would be 50 to 60. The value of each tree was assessed at Rs.600/-. However, he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.500/-per each tree with statutory benefits. No compensation was awarded for the land. 2. On a request made by the appellant, the respondent referred the matter to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, under Section 18 of the Act, and the same was taken as O.P.No.293 of 1988. Before the trial Court, CWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were filed on behalf of the appellant. No evidence was adduced by the respondent. However, Exs.X1 and X2 were taken on record. The grievance of the appellant herein before the trial Court was mostly about the denial of compensation for the acquired land. Through its order dt.09.03.1998, the trial Court confirmed the Award and did not order any compensation for the land. Hence the appeal. 3. Heard Sri M. Sivananda Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals. 4. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the Land Acquisition Officer and the trial Court were justified in not awarding the compensation for the land acquired from the appellant and awarding the compensation for the trees alone? 5. Quite a large extent of land was acquired by the Government for digging of irrigation canals and drainage canals for the Yeleru Reservoir Project. In a notification published under Sec.4 (1) of the Act dt. 25.09.1982, an extent of Ac.0.27 cents of land owned by the appellant herein was included for acquisition. The respondent passed award on 16.12.1983 awarding compensation only for trees. The trial Court has also taken the same view. 6. In a notification published under Sec.4 (1) of the Act dt. 25.09.1982, an extent of Ac.0.27 cents of land owned by the appellant herein was included for acquisition. The respondent passed award on 16.12.1983 awarding compensation only for trees. The trial Court has also taken the same view. 6. The very invocation of proceedings under the Act discloses that what is acquired by the Government is a piece of land. It is incidental that there existed some trees on the land. Basically, the compensation has to be awarded for the land. In case there exists any superstructures or trees, additional amount needs to be awarded for them. There are many instances of compensation being awarded for the land alone. There cannot be a case of awarding compensation to superstructures/trees only, without determining the compensation for the acquired land. 7. The respondent took note of the fact that on an average 50 to 60 coconut trees can be grown in one acre of land, and if compensation is awarded for the trees, there would not be any necessity to award compensation for the land. A mathematical error was also committed by the respondent. On one hand, it was observed that each coconut tree would need one cent of land, and on the other hand, the total number of trees that can be grown on one acre of land was restricted to 50 to 60, 40 to 50 per cent of the land is not accounted for. 8. The owner of an acquired piece of land is entitled to be paid the compensation for the land as such. In case there exist trees and other structures, the compensation therefore will be over and above the value of the land. Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of the judgment in O.P.No.11 of 1985 and Batch on the file of Sub-Court, Peddapuram. For the land, which was acquired, almost at the same time and for the same purpose in a neighbouring village i.e., Ramanayyapet, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.11,000/-per acre. In O.P.No.11 of 1985, the market value for the acquired land was enhanced by the trial Court to Rs.31,000/-. The neighbouring village Ramanayyapet abuts Kakinada town; whereas Samalkot is at little bit far away. We are of the view that the compensation for the land acquired from the appellant can be fixed at Rs.25,000/- per acre. In O.P.No.11 of 1985, the market value for the acquired land was enhanced by the trial Court to Rs.31,000/-. The neighbouring village Ramanayyapet abuts Kakinada town; whereas Samalkot is at little bit far away. We are of the view that the compensation for the land acquired from the appellant can be fixed at Rs.25,000/- per acre. The compensation awarded for the trees would be independent of the market value of the land. 10. We, therefore, allow the appeal awarding compensation at Rs.25,000/- per acre i.e., Rs.250/-per cent of the land acquired from the appellant, in addition to the compensation awarded for the trees. It is needless to mention that the appellant is entitled for all the statutory benefits on the said amount. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any filed, shall stand disposed of accordingly.