APHC010832942015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 4/2025 Between: 1. RAJULA LAKSHMAMMA, W/O VENKATA REDDY (C.2) AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. SK. GAFAR SAHEB, S/O MASUM SAHEB (C.4) AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 3. SK. MAHAMMAD RASOOL, S/O MASUM SAHEB (C.5) AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 4. SK. MASTHAN BEE, W/O MOULALI SAHEB (C.6) AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. 5. SK. KATUMBEE, W/O MASUM SAHEB (C.7) AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. 6. SK. ASMATUNNISA BEGUM, W/O. ABDUL KHAJA RAIL (C.10) AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 7. CHAVUTRU ROSAIAH, S/O SUBBAIAH (C. 11 DIED) ( APPELLANT NO. 15 IS THE LR OF THIS APPELLANT) 8. AMARA SIVARAMAIAH, (C.12 DIED ) ( APPELLANT NOS. 16 AND 17 ARE THE LRS OF THIS APPELLANT) 9. PODAPATI SOMASUNDARAM, S/O. ROSAIAH NAIDU (C.14) AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. 10. CHIRUVELLA SUBBAREDDY (C.16), DIED ( APPELLANT NOS. 18 NJS,J & TRR,J LAAS No.4 of 2025 2 85 19 ARE SHOWN AS LRS OF THIS APPELLANT) 11. SK. ABDULLA SAHEB, S/O PEERA SAHEB (C.19) AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 12. SK. HATELBI, W/O. MASTHAN SAHEB (C.20) AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. 13. KALIVE SIVABHARAGAVARAM, S/O INDUMOULESWARA RAO (C.21) AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, EMPLOYEE. 14. KALIVE SURESH BABU, S/O INDUMOULESWARA RAO (C.22) AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, EMPLOYEE. 15. SAVUTURU SANKARAMMA, W/O ROSAIAH (C.24) (APPELLANT NOS. 20 TO 22 ARE SHOWN AS LRS OF THIS APPELLANT) 16. AMARA RAMAKRISHNAIAH, S/O SIVARAMAIAH (C.25) AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 17. AMARA VENKATASUBBA RAO, S/O SIVARAMAIAH (C.26) AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, ALL ARE AGRIEULTURISTS. RESIDENTS OF DAEHURU VILLAGE, KALUVAY MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 18. CHIRUVELLA SAMPURNAMMA (LR OF C.16), W/O. JAYARAMI REDDY. AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. APPELLANT NOS. 18 AND 19 ARE NOW DECLARED AS LRS OF DECEASED APPELLANT NO.10, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 10.07.2025 IN I.A.NO.9 OF 2025 IN LAAS.NO.4 OF 2025. 19. CHIRUVELLA VIJAYAKUMAR (LR OF C. 16), S/O. JAYARAMI REDDY. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. 20. SAVUTURU LAKSHMAIAH, S/O ROSAIAH (LR OF C.24) AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. 21. SAVUTURU RAMAIAH, S/O ROSAIAH (LR OF C.24) AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 22. SAVUTURU PENCHALASWAMI, S/O ROSAIAH(LR OF C.24) AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS. RESIDENTS OF DAEHURU VILLAGE, KALUVAY MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. NJS,J & TRR,J LAAS No.4 of 2025 3 ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (LAND ACQUISITION) TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, NELLORE. 2. P NAGARJUNA, ( C.L) 3. KUNDUKUR ANKARNMA, (C.3) 4. PIDUGU RAMASUBBAMMA, (C.8 ) 5. PAGADALA LAKSHMAMMA, (C.9), 6. RAMALA RATNA REDDY, (C. 13) 7. JADAPALLI THIRUPALU, (C. 15) 8. JADAPALLI NARASIMHAM, (C.L7 DIED) 9. JADAPALLI RAMANAIAH, (C.18) 10. UNDELA ROSAMMA, (C.23) 11. JADAPALLI HARANATH, (C.27) RESPONDENT NOS. RESIDENTS OF DAEHURU VILLAGE, KALUVAY MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. NJS,J & TRR,J LAAS No.4 of 2025 3 ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (LAND ACQUISITION) TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, NELLORE. 2. P NAGARJUNA, ( C.L) 3. KUNDUKUR ANKARNMA, (C.3) 4. PIDUGU RAMASUBBAMMA, (C.8 ) 5. PAGADALA LAKSHMAMMA, (C.9), 6. RAMALA RATNA REDDY, (C. 13) 7. JADAPALLI THIRUPALU, (C. 15) 8. JADAPALLI NARASIMHAM, (C.L7 DIED) 9. JADAPALLI RAMANAIAH, (C.18) 10. UNDELA ROSAMMA, (C.23) 11. JADAPALLI HARANATH, (C.27) RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 11 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES ...RESPONDENT(S): beg to present this memorandum of grounds of first appeal before this Honble court being aggrieved by the order and decree made in LAOP No. 88 of 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge , Gudur, SPSR Nellore dated 05- 07-2004 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 condone the delay of 4063 days in preferring appeal against the Award and Decree dated 05-07-2004 passed in LAOP No. 88 of 1992 on the file of the Honourable Senior Civil Judge, Gudur and allow the petitioners to prosecute the present appeal, in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 NJS,J & TRR,J LAAS No.4 of 2025 4 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 condone the delay of 3228 days in re-presenting appeal in LAASSR No. 14219 of 2015 in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2025 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 condone the delay of 2240 days in filing LR Petition for bringing the Legal Representatives of the Deceased Appellant No. 15 in the above Appeal and allow the petitioners to prosecute the appeal in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 4 OF 2025 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 set aside the abatement orders against the deceased Appellant No. 15 in above LAAS in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 5 OF 2025 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 permit the petitioners herein to come on record as consecutive Appellant Nos. 20 to 22 in the above Appeal as Legal Representatives of the deceased Appellant No. 15, in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 6 OF 2025 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 condone the delay of 3893 days in filing LR Petition for bringing the Legal Representatives of the Deceased Appellant No. 10 in the above Appeal and allow the petitioners to prosecute the appeal in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 7 OF 2025 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 dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the Judgment dated 05-07- 2004 passed in LAOP No. 88 of 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur in filing the above Appeal and to pass NJS,J & TRR,J LAAS No.4 of 2025 5 IA NO: 8 OF 2025 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 set aside the abatement orders against the deceased Appellant No. 10 in above LAAS in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 9 OF 2025 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 permit the petitioners herein to come on record as consecutive Appellant in the above Nos. 18 and 19 Appeal as Legal Representatives of the deceased Appellant No. 10, in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 10 OF 2025 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 pleased to treat the affidavit filed in lA No.1 of 2025 in LAAS No. 4 of 2025 as counter affidavit, and pass IA NO: 11 OF 2025 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 ignore or permit the petitioner to delete the 6th para of the affidavit (counter affidavit) filed in l.A No.1 of 2025 in LAAS No.4 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 12 OF 2025 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 permit the petitioner / respondent to add the word Counter before the Affidavit, filed in l.A No.3 of 2025 in LAAS No.4 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 13 OF 2025 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 permit the petitioner / respondent to add the Counter before the Affidavit, filed in lA No.4 of 2025 in LAAS No.4 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 14 OF 2025 NJS,J & TRR,J LAAS No.4 of 2025 6 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 permit the petitioner / respondent to add the word Counter before the Affidavit, filed in lA No.5 of 2025 in LAAS No.4 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 15 OF 2025 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 permit the petitioner / respondent to add the word Counter before the Affidavit, filed in lA No.6 of 2025 in LAAS No.4 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 16 OF 2025 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 permit the petitioner / respondent to add the word Counter before the Affidavit, filed in l.A No.8 of 2025 in LAAS No.4 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 17 OF 2025 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 permit the petitioner / respondent to add the word Counter before the Affidavit, filed in lA No.9 of 2025 in LAAS No.4 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. CHETLURU SREENIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR APPEALS The Court made the following: NJS,J & TRR,J LAAS No.4 of 2025 7 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao) Dissatisfied with the compensation granted to the appellants by the Reference Court, for the soapnut, palmyrah, mango, cheeni, lime, coconut, guava, tamarind, pomegranate, and drumstick trees vide order dated 05.07.2004, in L.A.O.P.No.88 of 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Guduru, the present L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2025 came to be filed seeking enhancement of the compensation for the trees. 2. The land of the claimants was acquired by the respondent authorities for Kandaleru Reservoir for foreshore submersion of Telugu Ganga Project. Aggrieved by the award of the Reference Court in not fixing the compensation for trees the present land acquisition appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, hereinafter called as „the Act‟) for fixation of compensation for soapnut, palmyrah, mango, cheeni, lime, coconut, guava, tamarind, pomegranate, and drumstick trees. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that this Court, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the Hon‟ble Apex Court have fixed the rate for pomegranate trees @ Rs.3,000/- per tree and for mango trees @ Rs.3,000/- per tree and for coconut trees @ Rs.3,000/- per tree and for sweet orange trees (cheeni trees) @ Rs.4,000/- per tree and hence urged this Court to enhance the compensation for the aforesaid trees and to pass the same orders in the present appeal. 4. The appellants relied on the judgment of this Court in a batch of appeals, vide L.A.A.S.No.35 of 2019 and batch dated 27.09.2023 L.A.A.S.No.61 of 2022 and batch dated 05.10.2023, L.A.A.S.No.31 of 2019 dated 27.06.2019 and in L.A.A.S.No.2 of 2023 dated 04.09.2023 as also the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in D.Eswara Naidu & ors. Vs. the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) in Civil Appeal No.11355 of 2018 dated 20.11.2018, the judgment of the composite High Court in The Special Deputy Collector NJS,J & TRR,J LAAS No.4 of 2025 8 (Land Acquisition), Somasila Project, Unit-IV, Rajampet, Kadapa, Kadapa District Vs. Peddireddy Madhava Reddy and others. In the above said judgments, the compensation was fixed @ Rs.3,000/- per each pomegranate, mango tree, acid lime tree, coconut tree, guava, jack-fruit and sapota (sapodilla) and also the trees i.e., drumstick and neredu (black-plum). So far as the tamarind and soap-nut are concerned, the Court has fixed Rs.6,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively for each tree. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants further relied on the judgment of this Court in L.A.A.S.No.28 of 2019 and batch dated 05.11.2019, L.A.A.S.No.61 of 2023, L.A.A.S.No.63 of 2022 and the judgment in Pidugu Kondala Rayudu v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Telugu Ganga Project Unit, Kadapa reported in (2012) 12 SCC 848. In D. Eswara Naidu & Ors., versus The Special Deputy Collector(L.A.) (in Civil Appeal No. 11355 of 2018) dated 20.11.2018 reported in (2019) 13 SCC 785, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, inter alia held as follows: “The issue raised in these appeals pertains to the claim made by the appellants for enhancement of compensation for pomegranate trees, which stood in the land acquired for the purpose of Somashila/Telugu Ganga Project. The notifications in these cases have been issued on different dates between 1990 to 1994. The appellants had been granted compensation at the rate of Rs.2000/- per Pomegranate Tree. We find from Civil Appeal Nos.11404-11405 of 2016 that this Court has fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per pomegranate tree, as against the Rs.2000/- fixed by the High Court, in respect of the acquisition for the same project, for which notification was issued in the year 1994. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it would be just, reasonable and proper to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per NJS,J & TRR,J LAAS No.4 of 2025 9 Pomegranate Tree. Therefore, these appeals are disposed of with the following directions: (i) The appellants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) per Pomegranate Tree along with all statutory benefits. (ii) However, they shall not be entitled to statutory interest for the period of delay in approaching this Court or the High Court.” 6. In Civil Appeal No.2947 of 2022, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has fixed compensation for the pomegranate trees @ Rs.3,000/- per tree, following the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in D.Eswara Naidu & ors Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) (referred supra), in Civil Appeal No.11355 of 2018, in respect of the very same project. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals contends that the trees existed were pre-bearing trees (plants) and accordingly the value was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court has rightly answered the said issue and stated that the appellants are not entitled for the enhancement of compensation on the basis of the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants, as they are pre-bearing trees. Hence, urged this Court to dismiss the appeal. 8. The appellant's counsel has cited a recent decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallamputi Ratnamma (Died) by L.R. vs. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), rendered in C.A.No.2557 of 2024 on 26.07.2024. In this judgment, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court stated that landowners whose properties have been expropriated are entitled to compensation of Rs.3,000/- per pomegranate tree. For whatever reason, the Supreme Court had framed two additional questions in the order in the Special Leave Petition, pertaining to the actual number of pomegranate trees present, and (ii) the number of such trees per acre that were acquired and to resolve NJS,J & TRR,J LAAS No.4 of 2025 10 these questions, which also serves as the land acquisition court, while providing a fair opportunity for all parties to be heard, specifically directing the Reference Court not to raise any objections regarding limitation. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants also mentioned that some of the claimants had directly approached the Hon‟ble Apex Court through Civil Appeal No(s).4314/2024 or SLP (Civil No.12395/2024) with application I.A.No.193948 of 2024, seeking a direction to refer to the Lok Adalat for the resolution of land acquisition compensation. The said request was made in response to the communication dated 27.08.2024, issued by the Special Collector of the Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore, concerning similar relief as sought in the present appeal before this court. The Apex Court granted the request and directed the claimants to resolve their issue before the Lok Adalat. The order dated 13.09.2024 is outlined below: “Having considered the above, as the present matter pertains to claim for enhancement of compensation for the Pomegranate trees on Nellore District land, acquired from the applicant(s), the IA No. 193948 of 2024 and the main matter stand disposed of, vide order dated 13.09.2024, by permitting the parties to settle their dispute through the Lok Adalat proceedings in the Court at Nellore, as per the proceedings proposed by the Special Collector, in his communication dated 27.08.2024.” 10. Following the direction of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil No.12395/2024), the District Lok Adalat Bench in Nellore has passed an award vide order dated 05.07.2025, to pay compensation for the trees and also directed to pay compensation for structures and other trees. The appellant's counsel fairly stated though the award is silent about specific fixation of the compensation for the pomegranate and other trees, but the compensation was fixed at Rs.2,800/- per tree but requested to grant Rs.3,000/- per pomegranate and coconut trees, contending that the Lok NJS,J & TRR,J LAAS No.4 of 2025 11 Adalat award is a consent award and it cannot be relied upon. As argued by the appellant‟s counsel and it is well established that a consent award should not be the basis for the passing of the award on merit. 11. In the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in D.Eswara Naidu & ors Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) (referred supra) in Civil Appeal No.11355 of 2018, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has fixed the rate for the pomegranate trees and other trees for the very same Somasila/Telugu Ganga Project @ Rs.3,000/- for pomegranate tree as against Rs.2,000/- and held that the appellants are entitled to compensation @ Rs.3,000/- for pomegranate and coconut trees along with all statutory benefits and also further observed that appellants are not entitled to statutory interest for the period of delay in approaching the High Court. 12. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals has disputed about the number of trees. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal on fair admission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the compensation may be enhanced as per the number of trees as identified by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award, as the appellants have not insisted for grant of compensation for the number of trees which is pleaded by the appellants in the appeal. Therefore, it is made clear that the appellants are entitled to compensation for the total number of trees as identified by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award and not as the total number of trees as the appellants claimed in the Reference Court. 13. As the claim is only with regard to the trees, the present appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation for each tree as detailed below: Soapnut trees: Rs.5,000/- per tree Palmyrah trees: Rs.300/- per tree Mango trees: Rs.3,000/- per tree NJS,J & TRR,J LAAS No.4 of 2025 12 Cheeni trees: Rs.4,000/- per tree Lime trees: Rs.3,000/- per tree Coconut trees: Rs.3,000/- per tree Guava trees: Rs.3,000/- per tree Tamarind trees: Rs.6,000/- per tree Pomegranate trees: Rs.3,000/- per tree Drumstick trees: Rs.2,000/- per tree 14. The appellants shall pay the Court fee (if it not paid) on the enhanced compensation amount. The appellants are not entitled to interest during the delay period i.e., 4063 days in preferring the appeal after disposal of the L.A.O.P. by the Reference Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 24.07.2025 Ksj