IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NOS: 189. 223. 230.234. 235. 238 AND 249 OF 2015 LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 189 OF 2015 Appeal under Section 54 of L.A Act, 1894 against the order and decree passed in O.P.No.1/2012 Atmakur, Kurnool district dt.29.10.2014, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND A Sivasankaraiah, S/o Ambaiah R/o Sripathiraopeta, H/o Atmakur Village and Mandal Kurnool District. ...Respondent/Claimants I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(LAASIVIP. NO: 813 OF Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including Execution in EP.No.79 of 2015 in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2012, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, pending disposal of the above appeal. LAND ACQUISITiON APPEAL SUIT NO: 223 OF 2015 Appeal under Section 54 of L.A Act, 1894 against the order and decree passed in O.P.No.3/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool district dt.29.10.2014. Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool. ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND S. Venkateshwarlu, S/o Sanjarnika, R/o.Sripathiraopeta, H/o.Atmakur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Respondent/Claimants I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015fLAASMP. NO: 862 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including EP.No.81 of 20.5 in LAOP.No.3 of 2012 Execution in on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, pending disposal of the above appeal. LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 230 OF 2015 Appeal under Section 54 of L.A Act, 1894 against the order and decree passed in O.P.No.9/2012 Kurnool district dt.29.10.2014. on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur Between; The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool. ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND S. Sankaraiah, S/o Venkata Subbaiah, R/o.Sripathiraopeta, H/o.Atmakur Village and Mandal Kurnool District. ...Respondent/Claimants LA. NO: 1 OF 2015(LAASMP. NO: 869 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including EP.No.84 of 2015 in LAOP.No.9 of 2012 Atmakur, pending disposal of the above appeal. Execution in on the file of Senior Civil Judge LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 234 OF 201.*; Appeal under Section 54 of L.A Act, 1894 against the order and decree passed in OP.No.4/2012 Kurnool district in dt.29.10.2014. Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool on the file of Senior Civil Judge. Atmakur, ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND Pulipati Ramaiah, S/o Obulesu, R/o, Sripathiraopeta and Mandal Kurnool District H/o.Atmakur Village ...Respondent/Claimants M LA. NO: 1 OF 2015fLAASMP. NO: 877 OF pnn^) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including EP.No.82 of 2015 in LAOP.No.4 of 2012 Atmakur, pending disposal of the above appeal. Execution in on the file of Senior Civil Judge, LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 235 OF 2015 Appeal under Section 54 of L.A Act, 1894 decree passed in O.P No.10/2012 Atmakur, Kurnool District, dt. 29-10-2014. against the order and on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum- Land Acquisition, Officer Kurnool. ...Appeilant/Referring Officer AND Shaik Moulali, S/o. Pedda Alii Sab, R/o. Sripathiraopeta, H/o. Atmakur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Respondent/Claimants LA, NO: 1 OF 2015(LAASMP. NO: 879 OF 201 fi) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances Stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including Execution in EP No. 85/2015 in LAOP No. 10 of 2012, Atmakur, Pending disposal of the above appeal. the High Court may be on the file of Senior Civil Judge, s LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 238 OF 2015 Appeal under Section 54 of L.A Act, 1894 against the order and decree passed in O.P No. 6/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District dt. 29-10-2014. Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND S.Siva Reddy, S/o. Sanjanna, R/o. Sripathiraopeta, H/o. Atmakur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Respondent/Claimants LA. NO: 1 OF 2015fLAASMP. NO: 883 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including Execution No. 83/2005 in L.A.O.P No. 6 of 2012 Atmakur, Pending disposal of the above appeal. in EP on the file of Senior Civil Judge LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 249 OF 2015 Appeal under Section 54 of L.A Act, 1894 against the order and decree passed in O.P.No.2 of 2012 by the Senior Civil Kurnool district in dt.29.10.2014. Judge, Atmakur, Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool. ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND S.Leelamma, W/o Venkata Ramana, R/o Sripathiraopeta Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. H/o Atmakur ...Respondent/Claimants KA. NO: 1 OF 2015rLAASMP. NO: 898 OF 2nifi) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including EP.No.80 of 2015 in LAOP.No.2 of 2012 Atmakur, pending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Appellant in all the above appeals: Sri T.S Rayalu, Government Pleader for Appeals Counsel for the Respondents in all the above appeals: Sri Balia Ravindranath & Smt. Savithri Devi The Court made the following: Execution in on the file of Senior Civil Judge [3495] APHC010594512015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos.189. 223. 230. 234, 235. 238 and 249 of 2015 Between: 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool District. ... Appeliant(s) AND 1.A Sivasankaraiah, S/o.Ambaiah R/o.Sripathiraopeta, H/o.Atmakur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Respondent Counsel for the appellants Counsel for the respondents : Government Pleader for Appeals : M/s.Balia Ravindranath & Savithri Devi The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: {per NJS,J) Heard Mr.T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant. Also heard Smt.Balla Savithri Devi, learned counsel for the respondents appearing through online. 2. Aggrieved by the common order dated 29.10.2014 in L.A.O.P. No.1 of 2012 and batch, the present appeals have been preferred before this Court. 2 LAAS 189 2015 and batch 1 For the purpose of ‘Padmaraju Tank, Atmakur and Pinnapuram Villages’, a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 24.7.1999 for acquisition of an extent of Acs.15.56 cents of the respondents/claimants and others situated in various survey numbers of Atmakur and Pinnapuram Villages in Kurnool District, but the Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool (for short, the LAO) took possession of the lands in September, 1988. After conducting enquiry, the LAO passed Award No.4 of 2007, dated 17.4.2007 awarding compensation at Rs.16,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.1,81,276/- towards cost of wood value of Eucalyptus trees in terms of Tonnage. The respondents/claimants received the compensation under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming compensation at Rs.1,10,000/- per acre towards damages from 1988 to 1999 @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre and market value of 20,590 Eucalyptus trees at Rs.300/- per tree. 3. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellant, the Referring Officer was examined R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.17 were marked, whereas on the behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined While answering the point for consideration and confirming the market value of the land at Rs.16,000/- per acre, the learned Reference Court, held that the claimants are entitled to market value of each tree at Rs.122.60 paise as also Rs.8,37,600/- towards damages of the trees from September 1988 to 24.7.1999. 4. and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. The learned Government Pleader, inter alia submits that the common order under challenge is not sustainable as respondents/claimants are not entitled to the compensation for both the land as well as trees. He submits that the learned Reference Court had not followed the well settled legal position in this regard set out in State of 5. the 3 LAAS 189 2015 and batch Haryana vs. Gurcharan Singh ^ . He also submits that though the Notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act was issued on 24.7.1999 the Land Acquisition Officer took possession of the land In the year 1998 and there is a variation in the number of trees, and the same was not considered in the correct perspective by the Reference Court, contends that the reasons assigned by the Reference Court for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer are unjust and fixation of the market value for each eucalyptus tree at Rs.122.60 paise is highly excessive and not tenable in law. At any rate, the learned Government Pleader submits that the order under challenge is unsustainable and warrants interference by this Court. He On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ claimants appearing through online supported the common order passed by the Reference Court, contending, inter alia that the Reference Court had taken all the relevant factors into consideration and after examining the oral and documentary evidence, was right in not interfering with the award of compensation in respect of the lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and enhancing the compensation in respect of the trees is concerned, the same was based on the Exs.A.2 and A.3 Orders passed pursuant to the earlier Notification dated 15.5.1989 for the same purpose. She also sought to impress upon this Court that fixation of compensation for lands and trees standing thereon, is tenable and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhupendra Ramdhan Pawar v. Vidharbha Irrigation Development Corpn.,^. She submits that in fact the compensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer separately for the lands as also the Eucalyptus trees in respect of the Notification dated 08.7.1989 for ‘Padmaraju Tank’ was confirmed by a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by an order 6. ' 1995 Supp (2) see 637 ^(2021) 12 see 58 4 LAAS 189 2015 and batch dated 24.9.1998 in Appeal No.735 of 1997 and admittedly the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere with the said order. She submits that in view of the factual and legal position, the order under challenge warrants no interference and the appeals are liable to be dismissed. On a consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that arises for consideration is; Whether the order of the Reference Court in granting compensation separately for the land and the Eucalyptus trees, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is tenable? 7. Point: 8. The law with regard to awarding of compensation in respect of land and trees is well settled. On that aspect, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh (referred to supra), inter alia held as follows: It is settled law that the Collector or the court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit-bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to the value of the acquired land. The market value is determined on the basis of the yield. Then necessarily applying suitable multiplier, the compensation need to be awarded. Under no circumstances the court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well as fruit bearing trees. In other words, market value of the land is determined twice over; once on the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got from the fruit-bearing trees. The definition of the land includes the benefits which accrue from the land as defined in Section 3(a) of the Act. After compensation is determined on the basis of the value of the land as distinct from the income applying suitable multiplier, then the trees would be valued only as firewood and necessary compensation would be given ” ‘3. 5 LAAS 189 2015 and batch In Ambya Kalya Mhatre vs. State of Maharashtra^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the following questions: Whether in a reference made to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act, the land owner is barred from amending the amount claimed in the reference application and seeking higher compensation; and even if he could seek amendment, whether such application should be made within the period of limitation mentioned in Section 18 of the Act? 9. (i) (ii) Where the landowner has sought increase in compensation for only the land, in the application under Section 18 of the Act, whether he can seek increase in compensation for the trees or structures also, before the Reference Court? (iii) Where compensation is awarded for the land, whether no compensation can be awarded for trees or well separately? Answering Point No.iii with reference to Gurcharan Singh’s case (cited supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para No.34 expressed its opinion, which is reproduced hereunder: “34. We are afraid that the High Court has misread the said decision in regard of valuing the land and trees separately. If the land value had been determined with reference to the sale statistics or compensation awarded for a nearby vacant land, then necessarily, the trees will have to be valued separately. But if the value of the land has been determined on the basis of the sale statistics or compensation awarded for an orchard, that is land with fruit-bearing trees, then there is no question of again adding the value of the trees. Further, if the market value has been determined by capitalizing the income with reference to yield, then also the question of making any addition either for the land or for the trees separately does not arise. In this case, the determination of market value was not with reference to the yield. Nor was the determination of market value in regard to the land with reference to the value of any orchard but was with reference to vacant agricultural land. In the circumstances, the value of the trees could be added to the value of the land.” ® (2011) 9 see 325 6 LAAS 189 2015 and batch -1 In the present case, the Land Acquisition Officer had taken the value of the land on the basis of the sale statistics and determined the market value of the yield from the trees and fixed compensation accordingly at Rs.122.60 paise per tree. Therefore, in the light of the expression of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred decision, the claimants are entitled to compensation in respect of the trees but not for the land. The said decision in Ambya Kalya Mhatre was rendered by a Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, whereas the decision in Bhupendra Ramdhan Pawar (referred to supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants was delivered by a Two Judge Bench. 10. In so far as the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants on the basis of the order dated 25.9.1998 in Appeal No.735 of 1997, it appears that the Division Bench had no occastion to examine the matter with reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh (referred to supra) and therefore, we are not inclined to follow the said order. Basing on the legal position in Ambya Kalya Mhatre (referred to supra), this Court is of the view that the Reference Court committed an error in confirming the compensation in respect of the lands. 11. So far as the contention with reference to variation in number of trees advanced by the learned Government Pleader, no such ground is raised in the Memorandum of Appeal and as such, this Court is not inclined to appreciate the same and it is, accordingly, rejected. 12. Considering the legal and factual aspects of the case, this Court is inclined to hold that the respondents/claimants are not entitled for the market value of the acquired land at Rs.16,000/- per acre and it is accordingly set aside to the said extent. The order of the Reference 13. 7 LAAS_189_2015 and batch Court in respect of the compensation fixed for llie trees and the statutory benefits thereon is confirmed. The point is, accordingly, answered. With the above modification, the appeals are partly allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous pending, if any, shall stand closed. 14. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO DEPUTY REGISTER I //TRUE COPY// I SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Atmakur, Kurnool records if any) 2. Two CCs to Government Pleader for Appeals, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri. Balia Ravindranath & Savithri Devi 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Amaravathi 5. Three CD Copies district (with Advocate [OPUC] Pradesh at Stu sree » HIGH COURT DATED:09/01/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT + DECREES LAAS.No.189, 223, 230,234, 235, 238 and 249 of 2015 5 0 3 FEB 2C25 CurrcJit Sec-tlf3Ti 05 V ( Vv PARTLY ALLOWING THE LAAS WITH NO COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 234 OF 2015 Between; The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND Pulipati Ramaiah, S/o Obulesu, R/o. Sripathiraopeta, H/o.Atmakur Village and Mandal Kurnool District ...Respondent/Claimants Appeal under Section 54 of L.A Act, 1894 against the order and decree passed in OP.No.4/2012 on the tile of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool district in dt.29.10.2014. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri T.S Rayalu, Government Pleader for Appeals, Advocate for the Appellant and of Smt Savithri Advocate for Respondents. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: material papers Devi, 1. That the appeal be and is hereby allowed in part with the modification that the Respondents/Claimants be and are hereby not entitled for the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 16,000/- per acre and it is accordingly be and hereby set aside to the said extent; 2. That the order of the reference court fixed for the trees and the statutory benefits thereon be and is hereby confirmed; 3. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. in respect of the compensation Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil Judge(Senior Division), Atmakur, Kurnool 2. Three CD copies District. BSV sree / HIGH COURT DATED:09/01/2025 DECREE LAAS.No.234 of 2015 X 0 3 FEB 2025 03 O ^ ^ Current Section patcv'^s!^ PARTLY ALLOWING THE LAAS WITH NO COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 249 OF 2015 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool. ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND S.Leelamma, W/o Venkata Ramana, R/o Sripathiraopeta, H/o Atmakur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Respondent/Claimants Appeal under Section 54 of L.A Act, 1894 against the order and decree passed in O.P.No.2 of 2012 by the Senior Civil Judge Kurnool district in dt.29.10.2014. Atmakur, This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri T.S Rayalu Pleader for Appeals, Advocate for the Appellant and of Smt Savithri Advocate for Respondents. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby allowed in part with the modification that the Respondents/Claimants be and are hereby not entitled for the Government Devi, market value of the acquired land at Rs. 16,000/- per acre and it is accordingly be and hereby set aside to the said extent; 2. That the order of the reference court in respect of the compensation fixed for the trees and the statutory benefits thereon be and is hereby confirmed; 3. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO DEPUTY^EGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// / SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil Judge(Senior Division), Atmakur, Kurnool District. 2. Three CD copies BSV sree HIGH COURT DATED:09/01/2025 DECREE LAAS.No.249 of 2015 OF ANO/^ "I). i? g B 3 FE3 2025 M . Current Section ^ 3 o .- PARTLY ALLOWING THE LAAS WITH NO COSTS ** s IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 230 OF 2015 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool. ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND S. Sankaraiah, S/o Venkata Subbaiah, R/o.Sripathiraopeta, H/o.Atmakur Village and Mandal Kurnool District. ...Respondent/Claimants Appeal under Section 54 of L.A Act, 1894 against the order and decree passed in O.P.No.9/2012 Kurnool district dt.29.10.2014. on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri T.S Pleader for Appeals, Advocate for the Appellant Advocate for Respondents. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: and material papers Rayalu, Government and of Smt Savithri Devi, 1. That the appeal be and is hereby allowed in part with the modification that the Respondents/Claimants be and are hereby not entitled for the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 16,000/- per acre and it is accordingly be and hereby set aside to the said extent; That the order of the reference court in respect of the compensation fixed for the trees and the statutory benefits thereon be and is hereby confirmed; That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. 2. 3. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil Judge(Senior Division), Atmakur, Kurnool District. 2. Three CD copies BSV sree HIGH COURT DATED;09/01/2025 DECREE LAAS.No.230 of 2015 Of 0 3 FEB 2025 Current Section es Pat c o PARTLY ALLOWING THE LAAS WITH NO COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 189 OF 2015 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND A Sivasankaraiah, S/o Ambaiah R/o Sripathiraopeta, H/o Atmakur Village and Mandal Kurnool District. ...Respondent/Claimants Appeal under Section 54 of L.A Act, 1894 against the decree passed in O.P.No.1/2012 Atmakur, Kurnool district dt.29.10.2014. order and on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and material in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri T.S Rayalu, Government Pleader for Appeals, Advocate for the Appellant and of Smt Savithri Advocate for Respondents. papers Devi, This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby allowed in part with the modification that the Respondents/Claimants be and are hereby not entitled for the market value of the acquired land at Rs.16,000/- accordingly be and hereby set aside to the said extent; 2. That the order of the reference court in respect of the compensation fixed for the trees and the statutory benefits thereon be and confirmed: 3. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. per acre and it is is hereby Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR (iri W6FFICER //TRUE COPY// SE To, 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Atmakur, Kurnool 2. Three CD copies District. BSV sree > 4 HIGH COURT DATED:09/01/2025 DECREE LAAS.No.189 of 2015 ov= I 0 3 FEB 2025 ^ ^ Current Section PAT tn Co PARTLY ALLOWING THE LAAS WITH NO COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 223 OF 2015 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool. ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND S. Venkateshwarlu, S/o Sanjarnika, R/o.Sripathiraopeta, H/o.Atmakur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Respondent/Claimants Appeal under Section 54 of L.A Act, 1894 against the order and decree passed in O.P.No.3/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool district dt.29.10.2014. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and material papers m the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri T.S Rayalu, Government Pleader for Appeals, Advocate for the Appellant and of Smt Savithri Advocate for Respondents. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: Devi, 1 That the appeal be and is hereby allowed in part with the modification that the Respondents/Claimants be and are hereby not entitled for the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 16,000/- per acre and it is accordingly be and hereby set aside to the said extent; 2. That the order of the reference court in respect of the compensation fixed for the trees and the statutory benefits thereon be and is hereby confirmed; 3. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR fertON OFFICER //TRUE COPY// SE To, 1. The Civil Judge(Senior Division), Atmakur, Kurnool District. 2. Three CD copies BSV sree HIGH COURT DATED:09/01/2025 DECREE LAAS.No.223 of 2015 * cr = 0 3 FEB C9 ^ Current Section PARTLY ALLOWING THE LAAS WITH NO COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 235 OF 2015 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum- Land Acquisition, Officer, Kurnool. ...Appellant/Referring Officer AND Shaik Moulali, S/o. Pedda Alii Sab, R/o. Sripathiraopeta, H/o. Atmakur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Respondent/Claimants Appeal under Section 54 of L.A Act, 1894 against the order and decree passed in O.P No. 10/2012 Atmakur, Kurnool District, dt. 29-10-2014. on the file of Senior Civil Judge, This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and material in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri T.S Rayalu, Government Pleader for Appeals, Advocate for the Appellant and of Smt Savithri Advocate for Respondents. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: papers Devi, 1. That the appeal be and is hereby allowed in part with the modification that the Respondents/Claimants be and are hereby not entitled for the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 16.000/- per acre and it is accordingly be and hereby set aside to the said extent; That the order of the reference court in respect of the compensation fixed for the trees and the statutory benefits thereon be and is hereby confirmed; •N"- That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. 2. 3. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil Judge(Senior Division), Atmakur, Kurnool District. 2. Three CD copies BSV sree HIGH COURT DATED:09/01/2025 DECREE LAAS.No.235 of 2015 0 3 FE3 c- Current ^ •k '. O^i^oA-rC'^ 'tmtM. I _ PARTLY ALLOWING THE LAAS WITH NO COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 238 OF 2015 Between: The Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum-, Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool. ...Appellant/Referhng Officer AND S.Siva Reddy, S/o. Sanjanna, R/o. Sripathiraopeta, H/o. Atmakur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Respondent/Claimants Appeal under Section 54 of L.A Act, 1894 against the order and decree passed in O.P No. 6/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District dt. 29-10-2014. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and material in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri T.S Rayalu, Government Pleader for Appeals, Advocate for the Appellant and of Smt Savithri Devi, Advocate for Respondents. papers This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby allowed in part with the modification that the Respondents/Claimants be and are hereby not entitled for the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 16,000/- per acre and it is accordingly be and hereby set aside to the said extent; 2. That the order of the reference court in respect of the compensation fixed for the trees and the statutory benefits thereon be and is hereby confirmed; That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. 3. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S OFFICER To, 1. The Civil Judge(Senior Division), Atmakur, Kurnool District. Three CD copies 2. BSV sree HIGH COURT DATED;09/01/2025 DECREE LAAS.No.238 of 2015 # - , X 0 3 FEB 2C25 ^ Current Section PARTLY ALLOWING THE LAAS WITH NO COSTS