APHC010177022023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No. Between: 1. Jadapalli Tiripalu, S/o.Penchalaiah 2. Vardhineni Poli Naidu, S/o.Rama Naidu AND The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Telugu Ganga Project, Rapur at Gudur, Mulapet, Nellore Counsel for the Appellants Counsel for 1st Respondent IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No.49 of 202 Jadapalli Tiripalu, S/o.Penchalaiah (claimant No.1 died) Vardhineni Poli Naidu, S/o.Rama Naidu, and others ... Appellan The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Telugu Ganga Project, Rapur at Gudur, Mulapet, Nellore, and another. ...Responden Counsel for the Appellants : M/s.P.Sridhar Reddy Respondent : G.P. for Appeals IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3549] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA of 2023 (claimant No.1 died) ... Appellants The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Telugu Ganga ...Respondents 2 LAAS_49_2023 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (per NJS,J) Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 28.9.2000 in L.A.O.P No.113 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, with regard to fixation of compensation for Lime, Mango, Tamarind, Palmyra & Chini trees, the present appeal is preferred. 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 lime, tamarind, guava and drumstick trees. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant while drawing the attention of this Court, through the various orders passed by the different Benches of this Court from time to time, made submissions inter alia to the effect that in the light of the latest decision of this Court in L.A.A.S No.22 of 2025 dated 24.07.2025, the appellant is entitled for the relief sought for. Referring to a judgment dated 11.10.2017 in L.A.A.S No.417 of 2008 of a Division Bench of this Court, the learned counsel seeks fixation of the compensation in respect of the subject matter trees. He also relies on the orders in L.A.A.S No.18 of 2024 dated 01.05.2025, etc. The learned Government Pleader has not disputed the orders mentioned above. 4. Considered the said submissions and perused the orders on which reliance is placed. 5. Before dealing with the issue with regard to the compensation, it may be appropriate to mention that there is a delay of 8132 days in preferring the present appeal. 3 LAAS_49_2023 6. In so far as the delay is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohar Singh (Dead) through Lrs. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh Collector 1 inter alia held that the relief should not be denied on the ground of delay to accord parity between the similarly placed land-owners on the anvil of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If the appellants are granted compensation higher than their co-landowners, despite the fact that such counterparts were vigilant in pursuing their remedy promptly, it will lead to hostile discrimination viz., those landowners who got higher compensation. In Urban Improvement Trust vs. Vidhya Devi2, following the judgment of Apex court in Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh3 it was opined that there cannot be a ‘limitation’ to doing justice. The relevant observations are reproduced below: “Given the important protection extended to an individual vis-a-vis their private property (embodied earlier in Article 31, and now as a constitutional right in Article 300-A), and the high threshold the State must meet while acquiring land, the question remains – can the State, merely on the ground of delay and laches, evade its legal responsibility towards those from whom private property has been expropriated? In these facts and circumstances, we find this conclusion to be unacceptable, and warranting intervention on the grounds of equity and fairness.” 7. In Imrat Lal and others vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others4, the Apex Court held that “it is essential to take judicial notice of fact, that the villagers in India are by and large illiterate, not conversant with intricacies of law, usually guided by co-villagers who are familiar with the proceedings in courts” and further held following the judgment of the Apex court in Samiyathal vs. Tahsildar, Civil Appeal No.5335 of 2013, 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1528 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3725 3 (2022) 7 SCC 508 4 (2014) 14 SCC 133 4 LAAS_49_2023 dated 05.07.2013 that “many land holders may not have been able to seek intervention of the Apex court for grant of enhanced compensation due to illiteracy, poverty and ignorance and issued directions that those who have not filed special leave petitions should be given enhanced compensation.” 8. In the light of the above stated legal position, the delay in preferring the appeal deserves to be condoned. However, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of the very same subject matter project, the appellant shall not be entitled for the statutory interest for the period of delay in approaching this Court. 9. In D.Eswara Naidu & Ors., vs. The Special Deputy Collector (L.A.)5 (in Civil Appeal No. 11355 of 2018) dated 20.11.2018, 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 Pomegranate Tree. Therefore, these appeals are disposed of with the following directions: 5 (2019) 13 SCC 785 5 LAAS_49_2023 (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.” 10. In the light of the said legal position, this Court in L.A.A.S No.18 of 2024 etc., fixed compensation for different trees. Reference can also be made to the orders in L.A.A.S No.417 of 2008 dated 11.10.2017 wherein the compensation in respect of the other trees was fixed as follows: Mango, Acid Lime, Coconut, Guava, Jack-fruit & Sapota (Sapodilla) : Rs.3,000/- per tree Tamarind : Rs.6,000/- per tree Cheeni (Sweet Orange) : Rs.4,000/- per tree Soap-nut : Rs.5,000/- per tree Cashew nut trees : Rs.2,500/- per tree Drumstick & Neredu (Black-plum) : Rs.2,000/- per tree Dates & Palmyra trees : Rs. 300/- per tree Remaining trees : Rs. 400/- per tree 11. At this juncture, it may be appropriate to refer to the contentions of the learned Government Pleader 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 appellant is not entitled for fixation of compensation on the basis of the judgments relied on by their counsel. However, this Court is not inclined to appreciate the said submission, in the light of the decisions referred to supra. 12. In so far as the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader with reference to the number of the trees, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal on fair admission made by the learned counsel for the 6 LAAS_49_2023 appellant that the compensation may be fixed as per the number of trees as identified by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award. Since the appellant has not insisted for grant of compensation for the number of trees as mentioned in the appeal, it is made clear that the appellant is entitled to compensation only for the total number of trees as identified by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award and not as claimed in the Reference Court or in the present appeal. 13. In the light of the decisions referred to supra, the present appeal is allowed in part, fixing the compensation for each tree as detailed below: Lime trees : Rs.3,000/- per tree Mango trees : Rs.3,000/- per tree Tamarind : Rs.6,000/- per tree Palmyrah : Rs.300/- per tree Cheeni : Rs.4,000/- 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., 8132 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 TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA September 25, 2025 vasu