Contd… APHC010110032024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3549] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No:17 of 2024 Between: 1. PANDIPATI DAMODAR REDDY,, S/O. PULLA REDDY, (C.L) AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. 4-121, KAVERI NAGAR, 4TH STREET, KOTTHURU, ANDHRAKESARI NAGAR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRIET. 2. PANDIPATI LILAVATHAMMA,, W/O. PANDIPATI PULLA REDDY, (C.2) AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS, R/O. 2-86, KOLLAPA NAIDUPALLI, SRI RAMA MANDIRAM STREET, CHEJERLA, DACHURU, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. PANDIPATI DASARADHA RAMI REDDY, (DIED) (C3) PER LR. 4. PANDIPATI DAYAKAR REDDY,, S/O. DASARADARAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. 25-12-371, POLICE COLONY, A.K. NAGAR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. ANASAGRAM RADHA KRISHNAIAH,, S/O. ANASAGARAM RAMANAIAH,(C.4) AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. 28-3-460, ARAVINDA NAGAR, NAVALAKULA GARDAN, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 6. ANASAGARAM SIVARAMAIAH,, S/O. ANASAGARAM RAMANAIAH, (C.5) AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. 28/932, GANDLANAGAR, MYPADU ROAD, KISAN NAGAR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 7. ANASAGARAM RAMAINAIAH, (DIED) (C-6) AS PER LR NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S No.17 of 2024 2 Contd… 8. ANASAGRAM RADHA KRISHNAIAH,, S/O. ANASAGARAM RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. 28-3-460, ARAVINDA NAGAR, NAVALAKULA GARDAN, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 9. L.R-2 ANASAGARAM SIVARAMAIAH,, S/O. ANASAGARAM RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. 28/932, GANDLANAGAR, MYPADU ROAD, KISAN NAGAR, NELLORE, SPSRNELLORE DISTRICT. 10. CHENNURU RAMI REDDY,, (DIED) (C.7) AS PER LR 11. MALLIREDDY VENKATAMMA,, W/O. BALARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. PULIKOLLU, PODALAKURU, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (LAND ACQUISITION) TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, NELLORE. 2. BAREDDY PENCHALA REDDY, S/O. NALLAPAREDDY. R/O. KOLLAPANAIDU PALLI, CHEJERLA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. PANDIPATI LAKSHMI NARASA REDDY, S/O. PULLA REDDY, R/O. KOLLAPANAIDU PALLI, CHEJERLA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. (RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE NOT NECESSARY' PARTY) ...RESPONDENT(S): Having been aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 16.10.1997 passed L L.A.O.P. NO. 64 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Gudur, IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 9516 days in preferring the appeal against the common Judgment and decree dated 16.10.1997 passed in LAOP No.64/1991 on the NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S No.17 of 2024 3 Contd… file of Hon‟ble Additional Subordinate Judge, Gudur, and allow us to prosecute the present appeal, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. M S R CHANDRA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR APPEALS NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S No.17 of 2024 4 Contd… The Court made the following Judgment: (per NJS,J) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Government Pleader for Appeals 2. Dissatisfied with the compensation granted to the appellants by the Reference Court vide order dated 16.10.1997, in L.A.O.P No.64 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Gudur, the present L.A.A.S No.17 of 2024 came to be filed seeking enhancement of the compensation for the trees. 3. 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, palmyrah, drumstick, cheeni and mango trees. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants 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 appellants are 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. 5. Considered the said submissions and perused the orders on which reliance is placed. NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S No.17 of 2024 5 Contd… 6. Before dealing with the issue with regard to the compensation, it may be appropriate to mention that there is a delay of 9516 days in preferring the present appeal. 7. 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 Devi and others 2 following the judgment of Apex court in Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh3 wherein the court 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.” In Savitri Devi vs State Of U.P.& Ors 4, 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 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1528 2 2024 SCC OnLine 3725 3 (2022) 7 SCC 508 4 2015 (7) SCC 21 NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S No.17 of 2024 6 Contd… following the judgment of the apex court in Samiyathal Vs. Tahsildar Civil Appeal No: 5335 of 2013 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 appellants shall not be entitled for the statutory interest for the period of delay in approaching this Court. 9. In D. Eswara Naidu & Ors., versus 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 5 (2019) 13 SCC 785 NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S No.17 of 2024 7 Contd… 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: (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 appellants are 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. NJS,J & GTK,J L.A.A.S No.17 of 2024 8 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 appellants that the compensation may be fixed as per the number of trees as identified by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award. Since the appellants have not insisted for grant of compensation for the number of trees as mentioned by them in the appeal, it is made clear that the appellants are 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 Tamarind trees : Rs.6,000/- per tree Palmyrah trees : Rs.300/- per tree Drumstick trees : Rs.2,000/- per tree Cheeni trees : Rs.4,000/- per tree Mango trees : Rs.3,000/- per tree No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA ____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date:21.08.2025 Ksj