IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTYEIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 1448 OF 2018 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dt. 06-03-2018 in WP No. 8490 of 2007 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Special Collector-Land Acquisition, Prakasam District. 2. The Special Deputy Collector, L.A,R & R Unit, Cumbum, Poola Subbaiah Veligonda Project, Cumbum, Prakasam District. Collectorate Office, Ongole, ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT N0.2 AND 1. Ram Horticulture Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director Sri Seshagiri Rao, S/o late Veeraiah, R/o Kakarla village, Ardhaveedu Mandal Prakasam District. 2. B Venkata Krishnaiah Chowdary, S/o Sri Nagendraiah, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o Kakarla village, Ardhaveedu Mandal, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS 3. The Assistant Director of Horticulture, Ongole, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS (R3 is a formal party) lANO: 2 0F 2018 % ^ V \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 suspend the order dt: 06-03-2018 passed in WP No.8490 of 2007 pending disposal of the writ appeal. r Counsel for the Appellants: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI GANTA SRINIVASA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI GHANTA SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.3: -— The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010654832018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] m MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH 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 NO: 1448/2018 Between: The Special Deputy Collector-land Acquisition, and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Ram Horticulture Pvt Ltd and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GHANTASRIDHAR The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The respondents 1 & 2 herein were the owners and possessors of Ac.7.88 cents of land in Kakarla Village, Ardhaveedu Mandal of erstwhile Prakasam District. This land was acquired for the purpose of submersion under the Nallamala Sagar Reservoir of P.S. Veligonda Project. The acquisition process had been initiated by way of a notification, under Section 4(1), dated 24.09.2005. At that stage, a preliminary survey had been 2 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.l448of2018 conducted for the purposes of valuation of the structures therein and the trees and other agricultural growth in the land. It may also be noted that this acquisition process was not confined to respondents 1 & 2 alone, but included various other lands owned by other land owners. 2. After the preliminary survey had been conducted, the authorities had entered into negotiations with respondents 1 & 2 and the other land owners for the purpose of passing of a consent award. The award states that an agreement had been executed on 3. 05.01.2006 between the land losers and the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of passing a consent award. On 24.03.2007, a consent award came to be passed by the 4. Special Deputy Collector (LA), P.S. Veligonda Project, Unit-IV, Cumbum. St Under this award, the 1 respondent had been awarded a sum of Rs.4,67,083/- and Rs.2,96,561/- and the 2'"'^ respondent had been awarded a sum of Rs.1,77,936/-. Thereafter, the respondents and other land owners are said to 5. have executed Consent Forms, as required under the provisions of A.P. Land Acquisition (District Level) Negotiations Committee Rules, 1992. Under these Consent Forms, the respondents 1 & 2 are said to have accepted the awards passed against them. 3 m RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.1448 of 2018 The award of compensation was passed towards loss of land and 6, the loss of the trees available in the said lands. The respondents 1 & 2 have approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.8490 of 2007, contending that they have no objection to the valuation of the land, but did not accept to the valuation of the trees. The respondents 1 & 2 sought enhancement of compensation towards the loss of trees on the basis of reports of the Horticulture Department itself. The appellants, while resisting the Writ Petition on merits, also 7. raised an objection against the maintainability of the Writ Petition. The contention of the appellants was that the respondents 1 & 2, having agreed for the consent award, cannot challenge the award subsequently. The learned Single Judge noted that the award was passed on 8. 24.03.2007, while the consent forms were obtained from respondents 1 & 2 and other land losers, after the passing of the award. The learned Single Judge, on that basis, had held that such Consent Forms would not bind the respondents 1 & 2 in as much as such consent is required to be taken prior to the passing of the award. The learned Single Judge, on merits, also held in favour of 9. respondents 1 & 2 and allowed the Writ Petition, by an order, dated 06.03.2018. 4 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.l448of2018 The appellants have approached this Court, by way of the 10. present Writ Appeal, being aggrieved by the said Judgment. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition 11. would point out that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the consent had been given after the passing of the award, is not borne out by the record. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would bring to the notice of this Court the mention of agreement, dated 05.01.2006, contained in the award itself. He would also refer to another letter, dated 20.11.2006, which has been signed by respondents 1 & 2, stating that they were agreeable for passing of the consent award. On this basis, the learned Assistant Government Pleader contends that the respondents 1 & 2 had already given the consent even prior to the passing of the award. Sri Ganta Srinivas Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Ganta Sridhar, learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 would submit that both these documents do not contain any quantification of the compensation that would be passed in favour of respondents 1 & 2. He submits that the respondents 1 & 2 and the other land losers had only given inprinciple consent for passing the consent award. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that this consent was based on the fact that the compensation payable for the trees was fixed in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.357, dated 22.03.2006, by caiegorising the trees in the land as category ‘A’ trees. He would submit that the consent was given on this basis. However, the appellant authorities 12. \ 5 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A. No.1448 of 2018 had subsequently down-graded those trees to category 'B’ and reduced the compensation payable. This fact came to the knowledge of respondents 1 & 2 only upon the passing of the award. He would submit that in such the earlier consent said to have been given, under the agreement, dated 05.01.2006, or the letter, dated 20.11.2006, is not a complete consent, in as much as such consent can only be given on the basis of a fixed amount of compensation that is informed to the land losers. circumstances On the merits of the case, it appears that an initial survey was done on 04.10.2006, by the Joint Inspector Team, which categorised the trees as category ‘A’ on the ground that the orchard/ garden in the land was well maintained and irrigated with drip irrigation system with vermi compost and that the trees were in full bearing condition. Subsequently, a second inspection is said to have been carried in February, 2007, when it was observed that the gardens are left without proper irrigation, fertilizers, plant protection and other cultivation operations. On this ground and on the ground that the plants were not looking healthy and got dried up, a recommendation made to down-grade the trees from category ‘A’ to category ‘B’. Due to these recommendations, the compensation for the trees was fixed by treating the trees as category ‘B’ instead of category ‘A’. 13. was The concept of a consent award is to ensure that both sides arrive at one figure for payment of compensation and that figure would become agreeable to both and not amenable to any allegation or appeal. This 14. 6 RRR, J & Dr. KMR,. W.A.No.l448of2018 would mean that both sides would have to arrive at a figure, which is acceptable to both sides. It is after such a figure is arrived at, that the question of agreeing to a consent award would arise. In the present case, nothing has been placed before this Court to show that a figure has been arrived at or agreed upon by both sides. The agreement of 05.01.2006 has been placed before this Court. The agreement shows that there was acceptance of the rate for the land alone. There was no discusson relating to the value of the trees. The letter, dated 20.11.2006 also does not give any figure. In such circumstances, the initial consent, given by respondents 1 & 2 would not preclude an appeal or further allegation against the enhancment of compensation. The Consent Forms signed by respondents 1 & 2, after the passing of the award would not bind the respondents 1 & 2, as such Consent Forms do not meet the requirements mentioned above. Consent is given for the purposes of buying peace with the authorities. Once an award had already been passed, the land losers are entitled to the said compensation and the question of signing the consent award, at that stage, would not arise. In the absence of any material placed before this Court, to show that consent had been given by respondents 1 & 2, after a figure had been arrived at, the contentions of the appellants that the Writ Petition would not be maintainable on account of the consent award, has to be rejected. 15. 7 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, .1 W.A.No.1448 of 2018 16. On merits, the notification for land acquisition was issued in September, 2005. Once a notification has been issued and the authorities had made it clear that they would be taking over the land, the question of respondents 1 & 2 continuing to maintain the orchard in trim and proper conditions would be too much to expect. Further, there is no dispute between the parties that the trees were in fruit bearing condition. That was the criteria for deciding whether the trees can be placed in category ‘A’ or category ‘B’, by G.O.Ms.No.357. Once that criteria had been fulfilled, the down-grading of the trees from category ‘A’ to category ‘B’ is unreasonable and arbitrary. Such a down-grading would not be permissible. 17. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Judgment of the learned Single Judge and this Writ Appeal is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. i Sd/- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SE To, 1. Two CCs to GP for Land Acquisition, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 2. One CC to Sri Ghanta Sridhar Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies TF high court DATED:28/04/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1448 of 2018 DISMISSING THE W.A., WITHOUT COSTS