APHC010034752018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No. 74/2018 BETWEEN: 1. CHEEPATI MEERAMMA DIED PER LR APPELLANT. No.4, NELLORE 2. PUNETI JAYASRI, W/o. LATE RANGA REDDY, AGE 60 YEARS, R/O. RENUBARTHI VILLAGE, RAPUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE 3. PUNETI RANGA REDDY, DIED LR APPELLANT NO.5, S/o. RAMANA REDDY 4. KOTHA VENKDATA SUBBALAKSHMI, W/O. VIDHYADHAR REDDY, AGE 35 YEARS, R/o. D.NO.5/220, ARUNACHALAM STREET, SPSR NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. SMT. DEVIREDDY RAJINI, W/O.V LATE PUNETI RANGA REDDY, AGED 38 YEARS, R/o. FLAT No.2A, PREETHI TOWERS, MAGUNTA LAYOUT, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. (L.R OF PUNETI RANGA REDDY) 6. PUTTAMREDDY VENKATASUBBAMMA, W/o. BALARAMIREDDY, AGRICULTURIST, AGED 79 YEARS, R PENUBARTHI VILLAGE, RAPUR MANDAL SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. TRANSPOSED THE RESPONDENT No.3 AS APPELLANT No.6 VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.02.2025 IN I.A.NOS. 1 AND 2 OF 2024 IN LAAS.NO.74 OF 2018. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED, INSOFAR AS THE SIXTH APPELLANT IS CONCERNED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 08.05.2025 IN L.A.A.S.NO.74 OF 2018. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No. 74/2018 CHEEPATI MEERAMMA DIED PER LR APPELLANT. No.4, PUNETI JAYASRI, W/o. LATE RANGA REDDY, AGE 60 YEARS, R/O. RENUBARTHI VILLAGE, RAPUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. PUNETI RANGA REDDY, DIED LR APPELLANT NO.5, S/o. KOTHA VENKDATA SUBBALAKSHMI, W/O. VIDHYADHAR REDDY, AGE 35 YEARS, R/o. D.NO.5/220, ARUNACHALAM STREET, SPSR NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. SMT. DEVIREDDY RAJINI, W/O.VIDHYADHAR REDDY, D/O. LATE PUNETI RANGA REDDY, AGED 38 YEARS, R/o. FLAT No.2A, PREETHI TOWERS, MAGUNTA LAYOUT, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. (L.R OF PUNETI RANGA REDDY) PUTTAMREDDY VENKATASUBBAMMA, W/o. BALARAMIREDDY, AGRICULTURIST, AGED 79 YEARS, R PENUBARTHI VILLAGE, RAPUR MANDAL SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. TRANSPOSED THE RESPONDENT No.3 AS APPELLANT No.6 VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.02.2025 IN I.A.NOS. 1 AND 2 OF 2024 IN LAAS.NO.74 OF 2018. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED, INSOFAR AS THE IXTH APPELLANT IS CONCERNED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 08.05.2025 IN L.A.A.S.NO.74 OF 2018. ...APPELLANT(S) [3526] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CHEEPATI MEERAMMA DIED PER LR APPELLANT. No.4, PUNETI JAYASRI, W/o. LATE RANGA REDDY, AGE 60 YEARS, R/O. RENUBARTHI VILLAGE, RAPUR MANDAL, SPSR PUNETI RANGA REDDY, DIED LR APPELLANT NO.5, S/o. KOTHA VENKDATA SUBBALAKSHMI, W/O. VIDHYADHAR REDDY, AGE 35 YEARS, R/o. D.NO.5/220, ARUNACHALAM IDHYADHAR REDDY, D/O. LATE PUNETI RANGA REDDY, AGED 38 YEARS, R/o. FLAT No.2A, PREETHI TOWERS, MAGUNTA LAYOUT, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. (L.R OF PUNETI RANGA REDDY) PUTTAMREDDY VENKATASUBBAMMA, W/o. BALARAMIREDDY, AGRICULTURIST, AGED 79 YEARS, R/o. PENUBARTHI VILLAGE, RAPUR MANDAL SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. TRANSPOSED THE RESPONDENT No.3 AS APPELLANT No.6 VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.02.2025 IN I.A.NOS. 1 AND 2 OF 2024 IN LAAS.NO.74 OF 2018. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED, INSOFAR AS THE IXTH APPELLANT IS CONCERNED VIDE COURT ORDER ...APPELLANT(S) 2 AND 1. SPL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, NELLORE 2. BOGOLU VENKAT REDDY, S/O. RADHAKRISHNA REDDY, MAJOR, R/o. PENUBARTHI VILLAGE, RAPR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP) The Court made the following: 3 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao) The present Land Acquisition Appeal No.74 of 2018 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short Act), arises out of the order and decree dated 19.12.2012 in LAOP No.109 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. 2. The matter was reserved for orders on 24.07.2025, but directed to be listed under the caption “For Being Mentioned” in order to seek certain clarifications from the learned counsel for the appellants. 3. Heard Mr. K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, who appeared through online. He submits that the present appeal is filed against the orders passed in L.A.O.P. No.109 of 1991 and a copy of the order passed in L.A.O.P. No.3 of 2011 filed along with the appeal is in support of the appellants’ contention that in similar circumstances compensation was granted for the trees as set out in the said order. Be that as it may. 4. The extent of land covered Acres 47.56 cents situated in the Gundavolu village of Rapur Mandal, was acquired for the purpose of foreshore submersion of Kandaleru Reservoir under Telugu Ganga Project through draft notification and the draft declaration published in daily newspapers on 16.11.1989, however, it is gazetted on 13.11.1999. 4 5. Claimants around about 80 members have requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the award to the reference Court under Section 18 of the Act, not satisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The reference Court after considering the evidence of the claimants as well as the Referring Officer, has passed the order. 6. The reference order and decree dated 19.12.2012 was appealed by appellants 1, 2, 3, and 4. Since Appellants 1 and 3 died, appellants 4 and 5 are their legal heirs, respectively. The 3rd respondent who transposed as appellant No.6 withdrew from the appeal. Appellants 2 and 4 are pursuing the appeal based on the following grounds: 1. The Decree and Judgment of the court below is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 2. It is respectfully submitted that the Judgment and Decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, dt. 19.12.2012 is vitiated by fraud being committed by the Counsel for the claimants/appellants herein with the connivance of the Assistant Government Pleader who have filed Joint Memo without appellants consent and signatures claiming meager compensation only for the land, for some of the fruit bearing trees by leaving major part of the fruit bearing trees, Wells, Pipe Line, Electric Motor, House as per the Claim Statement wherein it is categorically mentioned about the trees and Award and got the Decree & Judgment behind the back of the appellants and got transferred the award amount into the bank account and misappropriated the same by the Counsel for which appellants 5 have lodged detailed complaint against the Counsel before Bar Council of A.P. 3. It is respectfully submitted that the 1 appellant is the owner of the land in Sy.No.285 admeasuring Ac.4-10 cents wherein 250 lemon orchads aged about 6 years, 40 Banginapalli Mango Trees aged about 9 years and 25 coconut trees aged about 9 years apart from one well, Electric Motor worth of Rs. 1,00,000/- and there was a house in 6 ankanams covered with asbestos sheets worth or Rs.70,000/- were existing as on the date of notification and entitled for more amount than granted as per her claim statement as per the settled law in view of the catena of judgments of this Honourable Court and Apex Court. 4. It is respectfully submitted that 2nd appellant is the owner of the land in Sy.No.286 admeasuring Ac.6-26 cents wherein fruit bearing trees of 550 lemon orchids aged about 6 years, 70 Margasa Trees aged about 20 years, two soapnet trees aged about 15 years, 4 coconut trees and 15 Booruga Trees aged about 10 years and there is a house in 7 ankanams roofing with asbestos & iron sheets with a varanda with attached bath room and one well worth of Rs.70,000/- and a pipeline with a distance of 200 meaters worth of Rs.40,000/- are existing as on the date of notification and accordingly entitled for more amounts towards the compensation as per the claim statement as per the settled law in view of the catena of judgments of this Honourable Court and Apex Court. 5. It is respectfully submitted that 2nd appellant husband and who is the father of the 3rd appellant by name Puneti Ranga Reddy is the owner of the land in Sy.No.287/1 admeasuring Ac.2-00 cents wherein fruit bearing trees of 600 Pomogranate orchids aged about 4 years, 1 white & 1 Black babul trees and 40 Maragas trees are existing as on the date of notification and accordingly 6 entitled for more amounts towards the compensation as per the claim statement as per the settled law in view of the catena of judgments of this Honourable Court and Apex Court. 6. It is respectfully submitted that the claim of the appellants is crystal clear from the claim statements filed before the Court below with conjoint reading of award of the LAO, whereas due to the fraud committed by the appellants counsel, Trial Court granted meager compensation for the land and for some of the fruit bearing trees by leaving the major part of the fruit bearing trees, wells, pipe line, electric motor and house structure though they are entitled for just compensation both for land and fruit bearing trees in accordance with law. 7. 7. I submit that the appellants herein were not having any knowledge about the fraud being committed by their counsel and they came to know only on getting the award amount fraudulently to the bank accounts and withdrawing the same by their counsel then they could understand the fraud being played by the Counsel. In the complaint that has been filed before the Bar Council, the detailed fraudulent acts in sequence have been stated and the said complaint is filed along with the appeal may be read as part and parcel of this Grounds of Appeal. 8. It is respectfully submitted that neighbouring village land to an extent of Ac. 47.56 cents were acquired vide notification dated 13.11.1989 and award No.06/TGP/90, dt.15.01.1990 for the same purpose ie., Foreshore submersion of Kandaleru Reservoir under Telugu Ganga Project and on reference U/s. 18 of LA Act to the V Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nellore District vide LAOP No.3/2007 compensation was granted to Rs.14,000/- per each lime, coconut trees, Rs.11,000/- for each pomegranate tree and Rs.20,000/- for each soapnut tree while granting Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for land by following this Hon'ble Court and Supreme 7 court judgments. And accordingly appellants herein are also entitled for the same as the appellants lands acquisition is subsequent to the aforesaid acquisition ie., 4(1) notification is on 17.02.1990 and being neighbouring village having the same potential land and fruit bearing trees and acquisition is being for same purpose. Whereas due to the fraud committed by their Counsel by filing memo restricting the claim illegally, appellants are denied/deprived legitimate compensation which is not legal and cannot be sustained. 9. It is respectfully submitted that it is pertinent to state here that even though the reference court granted lump sum amounts towards the other standing fruit bearing trees, structures and for the land we are not showing them in the value of the appeal filed herewith only to avoid inconvenience for calculating of the court fee for the reason that the amounts awarded by the reference court is not clear to deduct the same for paying the court fee but same is neither willful nor wanton but for the reasons supra. 7. The pervasive examination of the grounds raised in the memorandum, it appears that the appeal is filed on the grounds of cheating. It is trite law that to claim cheating, it must be demonstrated that the person who allegedly intended to cheat had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the moment of making the promise. It was clarified in many judgments that a mere breach of promise, agreement, or contract does not automatically amount to a criminal breach of trust. Furthermore, there is no assertion of deceit or fraudulent intent against the Advocate who allegedly filed the Joint Memo to indicate an intention to deceive the claimants. It is also important to note that no criminal 8 complaint was filed against the concerned Advocate with the police; it was only stated that a complaint was made to the A.P. Bar Council, which is pending and a xerox copy was submitted in Court. However, a xerox copy of the complaint cannot be considered as primary evidence under Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act. Even if the accusation were to be admitted, it does not contain the essential elements required for consideration. Thus, the Court is unable to assess whether the allegations are prima facie valid. Moreover, the claimants have not communicated with their counsel regarding the correspondence exchanged between the parties or any other acknowledged documents that could ensure justice is served. 8. The 3rd respondent who transposed as 6th appellant has presented the same arguments as appellants 1 and 2. Subsequently, the 6th appellant withdrew the appeal, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.05.2025. 9. The fact that the Advocate siphoned the compensation amount does not provide sufficient grounds to enhance the compensation, and the appellant cannot use this as a basis to seek an enhancement. Instead, the appellant should take the necessary action to recover the amount from the Advocate. This Court holds that unless appropriate action is taken against the Advocate who allegedly siphoned the compensation, the present appeal appears to be an attempt to mislead 9 the adjudicatory mechanism, with the intention of unlawfully obtaining compensation without good faith. The failure to file a complaint with the police further suggests that the appeal is taken in bad faith. The appellants have not pursued proper recourse against the Advocate by lodging a complaint, which raises the suspicion that this appeal is collusive in nature. This Court is not oblivious of the law, it can increase the compensation for the trees, if the appellants demonstrate that the reference Court failed to consider relevant documents for enhancement. This appeal is solely based on the claim regarding the Advocate's misappropriation, which is insufficient to justify granting the relief sought for in the appeal. 10. Hence, the appellants are not entitled for the relief as claimed in Memorandum of Grounds and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. Even though this Court has expressed the view that appropriate measures for recovery against the Advocate can be initiated and in the instant appeal no relief can be granted, the learned Counsel pressed the untenable grounds referring to the alleged cheating/fraud committed by the Claimants’ Advocate. No reasons are forthcoming as to why no proceedings are instituted to declare the order and decree a nullity, if fraud is played. 11. Under the aforementioned circumstances and in the light of the conclusions recorded supra, the order of the Reference Court warrants 10 no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed and this Court find it appropriate to impose costs of Rs.10,000/- on the appellants, payable to the Legal Services Authority within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If payment is not made within the stipulated time, the Registrar (Judicial) shall take action to recover the amount by initiating appropriate proceedings. Interlocutory Applications if any pending in this land acquisition appeal, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 30.08.2025 Harin 11 1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO L.A.A.S. No. 74 of 2018 Date: 30.08.2025 Harin