IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAp^NO^ THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 1 ftr wJ m 3 . \o'm />;7i PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA w * AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL NO: 100 OF 2019 Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the Order and Decree, dated 01-04-2002 passed in L.A.O.P. NO. 1 of 1993 on the file of PrI. Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. Between: 1. Kethu China Malla Reddy, S/o. Narasa Reddy (C-2 died) LR of this claimant shown as appellant No.2 As per Court order dated 27.6.2019 in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in LAAS.No.100 of 2019 grant leave to the petitioner no.2 as LR of deceased Appellant No.1. ...APPELLANT / CLAIMANT No.2 2. Kethu Ramana Reddy, S/o. Chinna Malla Reddy.K, R/o. Regadapalli Village Rapur Mandal SPSR Nellore District ...APPELLANT / LR of CLAIMANT No.2 AND 1. The Special Deputy Collector, LA, Telugu Ganga Project, rapur at Nellore Mulapet Neelagirisangam Nellore 2. Kethu Penchala Reddy S/o Narapareddy(C. 1) 3. Kethu Chandra Reddy S/o Ramachandra Reddy (C.3) 4. Shaik Anke Saheb S/o Vannur Saheb (C.4) 5. Shaik Basha Saheb S/o Anke Saheb (C.5) 6. Vennapusa Padmamma W/o Eswara Reddy (C.6) 7. Pathipati Narasapa Naidu S/o Pitchi Naidu (C.7) Vaddineni Venkataramanaidu S/o Chinnabbi Naidu (C.8) Revuru Prameelamma W/o Hazarath Reddy (C.9) 10. Kethu Subbamma W/o Ramana Reddy (C.10) 8. 9. ....Respondent/ Claimants ([Respondent Nos. 2 to 10 are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENT/LAO This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of i appeal, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court, and material papers in the petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri Chetiuru Sreenivas, Advocate for Appellants and the Government Pleader for Appeals/Respondent No.1 THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE: 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby allowed compensation for each tree as detailed below; a) That in respect of Lime Trees Rs.3,000/-per tree b) That in respect of Cheeni (Sweet Orange) Rs.4,000/- per tree, and c) That in respect of Palmyra Trees Rs.300/- per tree 2. That the appellants be and are hereby directed to pay the Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount; 3. That the appellants be and are hereby not entitled to interest during the period of delay in preferring the appeal after disposal of the L.A.O.P by the Reference Court; 4. That the appellants be and are hereby entitled to compensation for the total number of trees as identified by the Land Acquisition Officer in the Award, and not on the total number of trees as the appellants claimed in the Reference Court; and 5. That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal. by enhancing the Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER To, 1, The PrI. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. Psr 2. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 DECREE LAAS.No.100 of 2019 a I 0 JUL 2025 W^fiarentSKtaiX^ ALLOWING THE LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMAi% ~7 THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE TJ & PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 100 OF 2019 Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the Order and Decree, dated 01-04-2002 passed in L.A.O.P. NO. 1 of 1993 on the file of PrI. Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. Between: 1. Kethu China Malla Reddy, S/o. Narasa Reddy (C-2 died) LR of this claimant shown as appellant No.2 As per Court order dated 27.6.2019 in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in LAAS.No.100 of 2019 grant leave to the petitioner no.2 as LR of deceased Appellant No.1. ...APPELLANT / CLAIMANT No.2 2. Kethu Ramana Reddy, S/o Chinna Malla Reddy.K, R/o. Regadapalli Village Rapur Mandal SPSR Nellore District ...Appellant / LR of Claimant No.2 AND The Special Deputy Collector, L.A., Telugu Ganga Project, rapur at Nellore Mulapet Neelagirisangam Nellore Kethu Penchala Reddy S/o Narapareddy(C. 1) Kethu Chandra Reddy S/o Ramachandra Reddy (C.3) Shaik Anke Saheb S/o Vannur Saheb (C.4) Shaik Basha Saheb S/o Anke Saheb (C.5) Vennapusa Padmamma W/o Eswara Reddy (C.6) Pathipati Narasapa Naidu S/o Pitch! Naidu (C.7) Vaddineni Venkataramanaidu S/o Chinnabbi Naidu (C.8) Revuru Prameelamma W/o Hazarath Reddy (C.9) 10. Kethu Subbamma W/o Ramana Reddy (C.10) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ...Respondent/ Claimants (Respondent Nos. 2 to 10 are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENT/LAO Counsel for the Appellants: SRI CHETLURU SREENIVAS Counsel f6r the Respondents: GP FOR APPEALS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No. 100 OF 2019 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) The land of the claimant was acquired by the respondent authorities of Telugu Ganga Project for foreshore submersion of Kandaleru Reservoir. Aggrieved by the fixation of low and small amount for the trees, the appellant-claimant has received the compensation on protest and requested to refer the award to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short the Act). Accordingly, the award was referred and registered as L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1993 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. On considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Reference Court has answered the reference by enhancing compensation for trees. Dissatisfied with the compensation granted to the appellant, for \ the Lime, Cheeni and Palmyra trees vide order in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1993 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, dated 2. 01.04.2002, the present L.A.A.S.No.100 of 2019 came to be filed seeking enhancement of the compensation of the trees. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant 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. 3. 4. The appellant 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 (LA.) in Civil Appeal No. 11355 of 2018 dated 20.11.2018, the judgment of the composite High Court in The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Somasila Project, Unit-IV, Rajampet, Kadapa, Kadapa District Vs. Peddireddy Madhava Reddy and others. In the said judgment, the composite High Court has fixed Rs.3,000/- per each mango tree, acid lime tree, coconut tree, guava, jack-fruit and sapota (sapodilla) and also for the trees of pomegranate, drumstick and neredu (black-plum), and 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. Learned counsel for the appellant further relied on the judgment 5. of this Court in LAAS No.28 of 2019 and batch dated 05.11.2019, LAAS No.61 of 2023, LAAS No.63 of 2022 and the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in Pidugu Kondala Rayudu v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Telugu Ganga Project Unit, Kadapa\ The Hon’ble Apex Court in D. Eswara Naidu & Ors., versus The Special Deputy CoUectorjO.A.f dated 20.11.2018, inter alia held as follows: “2. 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 have 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. 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 Having regard to the entire facts and ' 2012 (12) see 848 ^2019(13) see 785 4 Rs.3,000/- per Pomegranate Tree. Therefore, these appeals are disposed of with the following directions: 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. However, they shall not be entitled to statutory interest for the period of delay in approaching this Court or the High Court. The compensation to the claimants shall be made within three months from today.” (i) (ii) (iii) 6. In the judgment rendered in LAAS No.417 of 2008, a Division Bench of this Court granted compensation in respect of trees, in the following manner: Mango, Acid Lime, Coconut, Guava, Jack-fruit & Sapota (Sapodilla) Tamarind Cheeni (Sweet Orange) Soap-nut Cashew nut trees Drumstick & Neredu (Black-plum) Dates & Palmyra trees Remaining trees Pomegranate tree Rs.3,000/- per tree Rs.6,000/- per tree Rs.4,000/- per tree Rs.5,000/- per tree Rs.2,500/- per tree Rs.2,000/- per tree Rs. 300/- per tree Rs. 400/- per tree Rs.3,000/- per tree 7. 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 & 5 ors \/s. The Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) (referred supra), in Civil Appeal No. 11355 of 2018 in respect of the very same project. 8. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar and another Us. State of Haryana. The said judgment does not pertain to the valuation of the trees. The issue in the present appeal pertains to the valuation of the trees. Hence, the said judgment is not applicable to the present facts of the case. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals further stated that the trees existed were pre-bearing trees (plants) and accordingly the value 9. was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court has rightly answered the said issue and stated that the appellant is not entitled for the enhancement of compensation on the basis of the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, as they are pre-bearing trees. Hence, urged this Court to dismiss the appeal filed under Section 54 of the Act, as the appellant is not entitled for any enhancement of compensation. 10. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in D.Eswara Naidu & ors Us. 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 6 7^ ‘ against Rs.2,000/- entitled to compensation @ Rs.3,000/- with all statutory benefits and also further not entitled to statutory interest for the Somasila/Telugu Ganga Project @ Rs.3,000/- as and held that the appellants are for pomegranate tree along observed that every appellant is approaching the High Court. The Court did not make and pre-bearing trees. Therefore, period of delay in a distinction between fruit-bearing extend the benefit of orders mentioned above. this Court is inclined to increasing the compensation for Pomegranate trees. In respect of each in LAAS No.417 of Rs.4,000/- and Cheeni (Sweet Orange) and Palmyra trees in fixed @ Rs.3,000/- Lime, 2008, the compensation was Rs.300/- per tree respectively. Government Pleader for Appeals has disputed about the 11. Learned number of trees. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal on learned counsel for the appellants that the fair admission made by the the number of trees as be enhanced as per compensation may in the award, as the appellant identified by the Land Acquisition Officer in is not insisted for grant of compensation for the number of trees which is Therefore, it is made clear that pleaded by the appellant in the appeal the appellant is entitled to compensation for the total number of trees as identified by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award and not on the total number of trees as the appellant claimed in the Reference Court. 7 12. As the claim is only with regard to the trees, the present appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation for each tree as detailed below: Lime trees Rs.3,000/- per tree Cheeni (Sweet Orange) Rs.4,000/- per tree Palmyra trees Rs. 300/- per tree 13. The appellant shall pay the Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. The appellant is not entitled to interest during the period of delay 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. Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S OFFICER The PrI. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gudur, SPSR Nellore District (With Records) One CC to Sri Chetiuru Sreenivas Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Appeals, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] The Section Officer, V R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh The Section Officer, Scrutiny Section (New Filing) High Court of Andhra Pradesh Two CD Copies To, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. psr RAM HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 ORDER LAAS.No.100 of 2019 ^ 1 0 JUL 2025 )g mntS«ctignx*>' 3- ALLOWING THE LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS