IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARA yy THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAYffo/ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FlVax i o im /Zi > 9^. Ihs^ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SR! JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SR! JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 115 OF 2019 Between: 1. Miriyala Chinnamma (C.1 died) (LR of this claimant added as Claimant No.C.6 As per orders dated 19-12-2000) 2. Gurramkonda Venkata Narasaiah, (C.2 died) (LR of this claimant added as Claimant No.C.5 As per orders dated 19-12-2000) 3. Gurramkonda Penchalaswamy (C5), S/o late Venkatanarasaiah, aged about 52 years, R/o Daggavoiu village, Dakkili Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 4. Miriyala Subbanna, S/o Venkatasubbaiah (C.6), aged about 70 R/o Dachur village, Kaluvoya Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...Appellants/Claimants years. AND 1. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Telugu Ganga Project. Nellore, Mulapet, Neeiagirisangam, SPSR Nellore district ...Respondent/R.O 2. Jadapalli Ramaiah (C.3) 3. Jadapalli Yanadaiah S/o Narasimhulu (C.4) ...Respondents/ Respondents [Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not necessary parties] Appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, dated 7- 03-2002 Passed in LAOP No. 108 of 1993, This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of. sppesi, theJudgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material the petftfon, and upon hearing arguments of Sri. Chetiuru Sreenivas, Advocate fpp the Appellant and Government Pleader for Appeals, Advocate for Respondent No.1. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the present appeal be and is hereby allowed; 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. That the compensation for each Mango tree be and is hereby enhanced @ Rs.3,000/- per tree; That the appellants shall pay the Court fee on the enhanced compensation amiount; That the appellants are 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 and There be no order as to costs in this appeal. papers in 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Sd/- S.V.S.R. MURHTY REGISTRAR JOINT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Gudur, S.P.S.R Nellore District. 2. Two CD Copies RAM 4' - HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 DECREE = 11 JUl 2025 I ^ Current Secnon LAAS.No.115 of 2019 ALLOWING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS % . 'll. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMA THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY/W| TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVElr H PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA ~9 7 O AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 115 OF 2019 Appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, against the judgment and decree of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, dated 07-03-2002 Passed in LAOP No. 108 of 1993. Between: 1. Miriyala Chinnamma (G.l died) (LR of this claimant added as Claimant No.C.6 As per orders dated 19-12-2000) 2. Gurramkonda Venkata Narasaiah, (C.2 died) (LR of this claimant added as Claimant No.C.5 As per orders dated 19-12-2000) 3. Gurramkonda Penchalaswamy (C5), S/o late Venkatanarasaiah aged about 52 years, R/o Daggavolu village, Dakkili Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 4. Miriyala Subbanna, S/o Venkatasubbaiah (C.6), aged about 70 years R/o Dachur village, Kaluvoya Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...Appellants/Claimants AND 1. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Telugu Ganga Project. Nellore, Mulapet, Neelagirisangam, SPSR Nellore district ...Respondent/R.O 2. Jadapalii Ramaiah (C.3) 3. Jadapalii Yanadaiah S/o Narasimhulu (C.4) ...Respondents/ Respondents [Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not necessary parties] Counsel for the Appellants: Sri. Chetiuru Sreenivas Counsel for Respondent No.1: Government Pleader 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. 115 OF 2019 JUDGMENT: {Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) The land of the claimants 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 appellants-claimants have 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.108 of 1993 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. On considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Reference Court has answered the reference by confirming the award. Dissatisfied with the compensation granted to the appellants for 2. Mango trees vide order in L.A.O.P.No.108 of 1993 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, dated 07.03.2002, the present L.A.A.S.No. 115 of 2019 came to be filed seeking enhancement if the compensation of the trees. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that this Court, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad 2 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. 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, 4. 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 L.A.A.S.No.2 of 2023 dated 04.09.2023, and 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. 3 Learned counsel for the appellants further relied on the judgment 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 Collector(O.A.f dated 20.11.2018, inter alia held as follows: 5. “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 have been issued on different dates between 1990 to these cases 1994. The appellants have been granted compensation at the We find from Civil rate of Rs.2000/- per Pomegranate Tree. Nos.11404-11405 of 2016 that this Court has fixed Appeal 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 Having regard to the entire facts and 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 Rs.3,000/- per Pomegranate Tree. Therefore, these appeals are disposed of with the following directions; ’ 2012(12) see 848 ^2019(13) see 785 4 (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. 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.” In the judgment rendered in LAAS No.417 of 2008 Bench of this Court granted compensation 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 (ii) (iii) 6. a Division in respect of trees, in the 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/- following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in D.Eswara Naidu & ors Vs. The Special Deputy Collector C/..A.j (referred supra), in Civil Appeal No.11355 of 2018 in respect of the very same project. per tree, i 5 8. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals has retied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar and another Vs. 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. 9. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals further stated 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 pre-bearing trees. Hence, urged this Court to dismiss the appeal filed under Section 54 of the Act, as the appellants are not entitled for any enhancement of compensation. are 10. 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 v^omasila/Telugu Ganga Project @ Rs.3,000/- as against Rs.2,000/- and held that the appellants are entitled to compensation @ Rs.3,000/- 6 I.'' for pomegranate tree along with all statutory benefits and also further observed that every appellant is not entitled to statutory interest for the period of delay in approaching the High Court. The Court did not make a distinction between fruit-bearing and pre-bearing trees. Therefore, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of orders mentioned above for increasing of compensation for Pomegranate trees. Mango trees in LAAS Np.417 of 2008, the compensation was fixed @ Rs.3,000/- per tree. In respect of Learned Government Pleader for Appeals has disputed about the number of trees. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal fair admission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the compensation may be enhanced as per the number of trees identified by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award, as the appellants are 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 on the total number of trees as the appellants claimed in the Reference 11. on as Court. 7 As the claim is only with regard to the trees, the present appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation for each Mango tree @ 12. f?s.3,000/- per tree 13. The appellants shall pay the Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. The appellants are 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/- S.V.S.R. MURHTY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S OFFICER -X- To, 1. Tf^dditi^l Civil Judge(Senior Division), Gudur District (with records if any) 2. One CCte ^rt;,Ghetluru Sreenivas Advocate [OPUC] ImafaTathi 6. Two CD Copies S.P.S.R Nellore Pradesh at High Court of Stu RAM HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE g 19 JUl m » Current Section LAAS.No.115of 2019 ALLOWING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS