1 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.A.Nos.31 & 45/2025 APHC010007992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL Nos: 31 & 45 of 2025 W.A.Nos.31 & 45/2025 Between: Chintamreddy Pedda Narasa Reddy, and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. M SRI ATCHYUT Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) These two appeals are being disposed of by way of this common order as these appeals have arisen out of a common order. 2 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.A.Nos.31 & 45/2025 2. Heard Sri M. Atchyut, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned G.P. for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. 3. The appellants in these appeals were the owners of various extents of land in different survey numbers in Rangampalli Village, Atlur Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. Their lands were sought to be taken over, for the purpose of submersion in the Somasila Project. 4. Initially, notifications were issued in the year 1991, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the 1894 Act’), for acquisition of the lands of the appellants herein. An award, dated 24.01.1994, was passed, setting out the extents of land that were being acquired and the structures and trees on the said land. However, this award did not include the lands of the appellants. It appears that this award, after setting out the extents of land of the appellants and the trees available on the land, had excluded the land and trees from consideration on the ground that the said land was not required for submersion. 5. In the year 2008, fresh proceedings had been initiated for acquisition of the land of the appellants on the ground that there was a possibility of these lands submerging in Srisailam project. It also appears that the appellants had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.31638 of 2012, for payment of compensation, in relation to the acquisition, initiated in the year 1994. This writ petition, came to be disposed of by a learned Single Judge of 3 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.A.Nos.31 & 45/2025 the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by order dated 07.02.2013. The learned Single Judge observed that there was a joint inspection on 23.11.2011 between the Land Acquisition Officer and the Engineers of the Srisailam Project, on the basis of which, a detailed report, dated 01.02.2012, had been prepared. The learned Single Judge, after noticing this report, had directed the acquisition authorities to consider the report, dated 01.02.2012, and take a decision on the request of the petitioners therein for acquisition of their lands. 6. Thereafter, the appellants initiated a fresh round of acquisition by way of a notification dated 09.10.2015, under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘Act 30/2013’). This notification, while containing the details of the lands of the appellants, did not contain any details regarding the trees available on the land. Aggrieved by the omission of such trees, in the notification, the appellants had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.24887 of 2014 and W.P.No.988 of 2018. 7. The appellants contended that the trees existing in 1991, which had been specifically mentioned in the Award dated 24.01.1994, were not mentioned in the notification issued in 2015 and the same is arbitrary and compensation would have to be paid to the appellants, in relation to the said trees, by calculating the compensation in accordance with Act 30/2013. 4 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.A.Nos.31 & 45/2025 8. The respondents herein took the stand that the direction of the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.31638 of 2012 was to pay compensation to the appellants in accordance with the report, dated 01.02.2012. The respondents contended that the said report does not mention any trees and consequently, no compensation need be paid for the said trees. 9. The appellants herein contended that the trees were specifically mentioned in the notification issued in the year 1991. Further, the said trees were also mentioned in the Award proceedings dated 24.01.1994. Consequently, the respondents cannot refuse payment of compensation for the trees. The appellants also contend that the report dated 01.02.2012 is on the basis of an inspection carried out in the year 2011, when the entire area had already been submerged and no trees could have been seen. 10. A learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of both the writ petitions by order, dated 02.12.2022. The learned Single Judge, after going through the record, held that the appellants were entitled to compensation, for their land, in terms of Act 30/2013. However, the learned Single Judge also held that since the trees were notified in the notification of 1991, and the same were not included in the notification issued under Act 30/2013, the compensation in relation to such trees should be paid under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 11. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants herein have approached this Court by way of the present writ appeals. 5 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.A.Nos.31 & 45/2025 12. A perusal of the record and material placed before this Court would show that in the year 1991, the authorities had found that there were various trees on the lands of the appellants. These trees were also mentioned in the Award passed in the year 1994. However, the land of the appellants had been excluded in the said Award on the ground that the said land was not required for submergence. Thereafter, the acquisition proceedings were again initiated on the ground that the land of the petitioners would be submerged. 13. While acknowledging that the land of the appellants would have to be acquired, the authorities have taken curious stand that the report, dated 01.02.2012, does not mention trees and therefore no compensation would be paid on the basis of these trees. This contention has been rejected by the learned Single Judge and no appeal has been filed against the said finding. In such circumstances, the respondents are bound to pay compensation for the trees. 14. The only question that would arise is whether such compensation is to be paid in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or Land Acquisition Act, 2013. Since the acquisition of the land of the appellants is being done under Act 30/2013, the compensation payable for the trees of the appellants would also be in terms of Act 30/2013 only. 15. Accordingly the writ appeals are partly allowed affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge, subject to the modification of the orders of the learned Single Judge to the extent of holding that compensation in 6 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.A.Nos.31 & 45/2025 relation to the trees, found on the land of the petitioner, in the notification issued in 1991, and the Award passed in 1994, would have to be paid in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNAN DAN RAO, J. ________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Js 7 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.A.Nos.31 & 45/2025 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO & HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL Nos:31 & 45 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 07th April, 2025 Js