APHC010516932013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3565] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 534/2013 Between: 1. DEVAREDDY GOPAL REDDY, S/O. JAYARAMI REDDY, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O.PATIMITTA VILLAGE, HAMLET OF YAKASIRI, CHITTAMURU MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LA, Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore, Neelagiri Sangam, Mulapet, Nellore S.P.S.R. Nellore District. ...RESPONDENT to present this Memorandum of Appeal before this Hon'ble Court against the decree and award dt.05.07.2013 made in L.A.O.P.NO.77 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. I LAXMIKANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP FOR APPEALS 2 The Court made the following Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Subhendu Samanta) This appeal has been preferred against the order and decree, dated 05.07.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Guntur in L.A.O.P.No.77 of 2011. 2. Brief facts of the matter are that A notification was published under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated 22.05.2007 for the acquisition of the lands situated in Yakasiri Village of Chittamuru Mandal covered in different survey numbers of the claimants for excavation of Yakasiri 4 L Minor under 7th Branch Canal under Telugu Ganga Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed the compulsory award fixing the market value of the land as Rs.48,000/- per acre. The same was challenged in reference before the learned referral Court under the said Act 1894, wherein, the learned referral Court has enhanced the market value by 80% over and above of the market value fixed by Special Land Acquisition Officer along with other statutory benefits. However, the learned referral Court has rejected the claim regarding standing trees over the said acquired land. Hence, this instant appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the land value fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as well as the referral Court is illegal. The value of the land is more than Rs.8 lakhs per acre. He further submits that the determination of the land value is baseless. 3 4. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the compensation has been correctly assessed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. However, the referral Court has considered all aspects and justifiably enhanced the market value of the land. There is no scope to intervene with the impugned order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order passed by the learned referral Court as well as the proceedings of the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of this matter. Carefully examined the record. 6. The impugned award in question is in respect of survey No.294/2, which was registered in the name of present claimant/appellant. During the award enquiry before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant has given willingness to part with the land and passing of consent award for the extent of Ac.1.06 cents in Survey No.294/2 of Yakasiri provided Rs.96,200/- per acre including statutory benefits i.e., solatium, interest and additional market value etc., be awarded. In terms of the consent of claimant, District Level Negotiations Committee has reached in settlement with the appellant. Therefore, the compensation amount was fixed for Rs.1,12,449/- and it was awarded to be paid in favour of the appellant. Since the value of the land and compensation thereof is more than the settlement between the appellant and District Level Negotiations Committee and furthermore, as the said value of the land was enhanced by the learned referral Court to 80% on and above 4 Rs.48,000/- per acre, on considering different sale deed of same location in the relevant times, thus, this Court find no justification to further enhance the value of land. 7. It appears that learned referral Court has denied to pay any compensation regarding standing trees. Admittedly, Special Land Acquisition Officer has mentioned presence of different trees in the acquired land. By virtue of the direction of the Apex Court, the compensation in respect of standing trees should be paid separately along with the value of the land. Relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.11404-11405 of 2016, this Court in L.A.A.S.No.35 of 2019 and batch as well as L.A.A.S.No.62 of 2022 has already fixed the value of the separate trees vide common judgment, dated 27.09.2023 and judgment dated 01.05.2025 respectively. Learned counsel for the parties has consented that the issue of value of trees is similar to the issue in the said common judgment, thus, this appeal may be decided following the earlier decision of this Court. 8. It appears from the award of Special Land Acquisition Officer that there are standing trees over the acquired land at the time of acquisition and they are:- Neem(B)-30, Neem(S)-6, Palmyrah-34, Tamarind-1, Subabul-66, Dirisina-3 and Bamboo-2. 9. As regards the compensation of each tree is concerned, in view of the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court as mentioned above, the compensation of each tree is as follows: 5 Name of the tree Compensation per tree No.of trees Amount Neem Rs.400/- 36 Rs.14,400/- Palmyrah Rs.300/- 34 Rs.10,200/- Tamarind Rs.6,000/- 1 Rs.6,000/- Subabul Rs.400/- 66 Rs.26,400/- Dirisina Rs.400/- 3 Rs.1,200/- Bamboo Rs.400/- 2 Rs.800/- Total Rs.59,000/- 10. It appears from the record that the value of trees has already awarded by the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) amounting to Rs.20,504/- that should be deducted from the compensation in respect of trees as calculated herein above, accordingly, the enhanced compensation granted by this Court is Rs.38,496/- (Rs.59,000/- - Rs.20504/-). 11. Under the above observation, the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation for trees as calculated hereinabove along with all statutory benefits i.e., solatium, interest etc. 12. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Appeal Suit is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date: 05.03.2026 SPP 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA L.A.A.S.No.534 of 2013 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Subhendu Samanta) Dated 05.03.2026 SPP