A.,,. fvm ? IN THE HIGH COUF?T OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AM THURSDAY. THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITIONAPPEALSUIT NO: 9 OF 2024 Between: Muppala Raja Sekhara Raju, S/o Bhagavan Narayana Raju, Aged about 60 years, Arimenipadu Village, Ozili Mandal, Tirupathi District, (earlier Nellore District) ...Appellant/Claimant AND 1. The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition) Telugu Ganga Project Podalakur at Nellore. ...Respondent/Respondent 2. Gangodi Penchalamma, W/o. Narasaiah, 3. Kdthapu Pitchaiah, S/o. Penchalaiah 4. Makam China Subbaiah, S/o. Subbaiah (Exparte) 5. Angisetty Guruswamy, S/o. Guravaiah, 6. Sannuboina Seenaiah, S/o. Penchalaiah 7. Yamala Venkata Rayulu, S/o. Subbaiah 8. Shaik Masthan Saheb, S/o. Masthan Saheb 9. Maddisetty Venkata Narasaiah, S/o. Somaiah 10. Yamala Narasimha Rao, S/o. Penchalaiah 11. Shaik Himambi, W/o. Late Peda Hajarattaiah, 12.Koppala Subramanyam Reddy, S/o. Pulla Reddy IS.Muppalla Bhagavathamma, W/o. Narasimha Reddy, 14.Muppalla Swarnalakshmi, D/o. Narasimha Raju (Respondents 2 to 14 are not necessary parties) ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act. against the Common Order and Decree dated 02.07.2004 passed in L.A.O.P. NO. 58 of 1993 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Order and Decree of the trail Court, and material papers in the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M S R Chandra Murthy for the Appellant, and GP for Appeals for the Respondent. THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby Allowed; That the appellant be and is 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 appellant claimed in the reference Court; That the compensation for Pomegranate trees be and is hereby enhanced to Rs.3,000/- per tree; That the appellant be and is hereby directed to pay the Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount; That the appellant be and is 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; That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Sd/- S.V.S.R. MURHTY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division): Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. 2. Two CD Copies SAM RAM HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 DECREE 50F LAAS.N0.9 of 2024 §S^ /o g 2 7 JUN 2025 mJi <5. ALLOWING THE LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AM THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 9 OF 2024 Appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, against the Common Order and Decree dated 02.07.2004 passed in L.A.O.P. No. 58 of 1993 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. Between: Muppala Raja Sekhara Raju, S/o Bhagavan Narayana Raju, Aged about 60 years, Arimenipadu Village, Ozili Mandal, Tirupathi District, (earlier Nellore District) ...Appellant/Claimant AND 1. The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition) Telugu Ganga Project Podalakur at Nellore. ...Respondent/Respondent 2. Gangodi Penchalamma, W/o. Narasaiah, 3. Kothapu Pitchaiah, S/o. Penchalaiah 4. Makam China Subbaiah, S/o. Subbaiah (Exparte) 5. Angisetty Guruswamy, S/o. Guravaiah, 6. Sannuboina Seenaiah, S/o. Penchalaiah 7. Yamala Venkata Rayulu, S/o. Subbaiah 8. Shaik Masthan Saheb, S/o. Masthan Saheb 9. Maddisetty Venkata Narasaiah, S/o. Somaiah lO.Yamala Narasimha Rao, S/o. Penchalaiah tlShaik Himambi, W/o. Late Peda Hajarattaiah, 12.Koppala Subramanyam Reddy, S/o. Pulla Reddy 13.Muppalla Bhagavathamma, W/o. Narasimha Reddy 14.Muppalla Swarnalakshmi, D/o. Narasimha Raju (Respondents 2 to 14 are not necessary parties) ...Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M S R Chandra Murthy Counsel for the Respondent: GP for Appeals The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO ■ AKin Ar.nmsmON appeal SUIT No. 9 OF 2024 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) The land of the claimant was acquired by the respondent Project for foreshore submersion of authorities of Telugu Ganga Kandaleru Reservoir. Aggrieved by the fixation of low and small amount the appellant-claimant has received the compensation on requested to refer the award to the Civil Court under Section Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short the Act). Accordingly, the referred and registered as L.A.O.P.No.58 of 1993 on the file for the trees, protest and 18 of the award was of the Court both oral and documentary reference by confirming the award with regard to trees. of Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. On considering the evidence, the Reference Court has answered the 2. Dissatisfied with the compensation granted to the appellant, for L.A.O.P.No.58 of 1993 on the file the Pomegranate trees vide order in Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, dated 02.07.2004, the present be filed seeking enhancement of the of the L.A.A.S.No.9 of 2024 came to compensation of the trees. 2 3.. 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. 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-1 V, 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 \ 3 tamarind and soap-nut are concerned, the Court has fixed Rs.6,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively for each tree. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further relied on the judgment of 2019 and batch dated 05.11.2019, LAAS of 2022 and the judgment of the Hon’ble of this Court in LAAS No.28 No.61 of 2023, LAAS No.63 Pidugu Kondala Rayudu v. Special Deputy Collector, Land High Court in Project Unit, Kadapa\ The Hon’ble Apex The Special Deputy Acquisition, Telugu Ganga D. Eswara Naidu & Ors. versus Court in Collector(O.A.f dated 20.11.2018, inter alia held as follows: appeals pertains to the claim made enhancement of compensation for the land acquired for the 2. The issue raised in these by the appellants for pomegranate trees, which stood in of Somashila/Telugu Ganga Project. The notifications in have been issued on different dates between 1990 to have been granted compensation at the purpose these cases 1994. The appellants We find from Civil rate of Rs.2000/- per Pomegranate Tree. Appeal Nos.11404-11405 of compensation 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 of the view that it would be 2016 that this Court has fixed at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per pomegranate tree as in the year 1994.. circumstances of the case, we are just, reasonable and proper to fix the compensation at the rate of ^ 2012(12) see 848 ^2019(13) see 785 1. 4 Rs.3,000/- per Pomegranate Tree. Therefore, these appeals disposed of with th'e 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, (iii) The compensation to the claimants shall be made within three months from today.” In the judgment rendered in LAAS No.417 of 2008 are (i) (ii) 6. 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 Vs. The Special Deputy. Collector (LA.) (referred supra), in Civil Appeal No. 11355 of 2018 in respect of the very same project. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals has relied on the 8. 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. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals further stated that the 9. 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 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 Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA.) (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 f 6 Somasila/Telugu Ganga Project @ Rs.3,000/- as against Rs.2,000/- and held that the appellants are entitled to compensation @ Rs.3,000/- 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. increasing the compensation for Pomegranate trees. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals has disputed about the 11. number of trees. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal on fair admission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the compensation may be enhanced as per the number of trees as identified by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award, as the appellant is not insisted for grant of compensation for the number of trees which is pleaded by the appellant in the appeal. Therefore, it is made clear that 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. As the claim is only with regard to the trees, the present appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation for Pomegranate trees @ 12. Rs.3,000/- per tree. 7 the enhanced 13. The appellant shall- pay the Court fee on 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, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case As a sequel shall stand closed. Sd/- S.V.S.R. MURHTY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// FFICER SE' To, 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division): Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. 2. One CC to Sri M S R Chandra Murthy Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Appeals, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. The Section Officer, New Filing Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh atAmaravati. 5. Two CD Copies SAM RAM HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 AND«^ JUDGMENT + DECREE LAAS.No.9 of 2024 2025 s ALLOWING THE LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS