Latest Judgments

Pidugu Kondala Rayudu v. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Tellugu, Ganga Project, Unit-I, Kadapa

November 26, 2021
Civil Appeal Nos. 11404-11405 of 2016

Land Acquisition and Requisition — Compensation for trees — Determination of, based on earlier decision is not justified — Efflux of time — Yeild from trees would fetch more income — Compensation needs to be fixed considering said aspect

— Acquisition of land along with pomegranate trees for Somashila Project submergence — Compensation for trees — Quantum of — Reference Court awarded an amount of Rs 4,000/- per tree — High Court reduced compensation for pomegranate trees by placing reliance on its earlier decision in AS No. 1749 of 2004 — Judgment in A.S. No. 1749 of 2004 relates to Notification of the year 1977 by which compensation of Rs 2000/- was awarded per pomegranate tree — Over the efflux of time, cost of planting and raising pomegranate tree has increased multifold and yield therefrom would fetch more income — Held, High Court ought not to have reduced the compensation to Rs 2000/- per each tree — Appellant claimant is entitled to Rs 3000/- as compensation for each of the pomegranate tree and all statutory payments like solatium and interest on the same — Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 23                  (Paras 8, 9 and 10)

Print 🖨 PDF 📄

(R.K. Agrawal and R. Banumathi, JJ.)

Pidugu Kondala Rayudu ____________________________ Appellant

v.

The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Tellugu, Ganga Project, Unit-I, Kadapa ________________________ Respondent

Civil Appeal Nos. 11404-11405 of 2016 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 24945-24946 of 2015], decided on November 29, 2016

The Order of the court was delivered by


Order

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 25th September, 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh reversing the judgment passed by the Reference Court and thereby reducing the compensation fixed for pomegranate trees planted in the acquired land from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- per tree.

3. The facts are not in dispute. The Government of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh acquired an extent of 8.86 acres located in Bedusupalli Village of Atlur Mandal of Kadapa District belonging to the appellant-claimant for the purpose of Somashila Project submergence. Acquired land to the total extent of 8.86 acres were located in three survey numbers, namely Survey No. 509/2A, Survey No. 510 and Survey No. 511/1. By an Award dated 8th March, 1999 the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 34,000/- per acre for the entire extent of 8.86 acres of land. The Land Acquisition Officer has not awarded any amount towards 479 pomegranate trees in Survey Nos. 510 and 511/1. The Reference Court fixed the market value for the acquired land measuring 4.27 acres in Survey No. 509/2A and awarded Rs. 68,000/- per acre. Insofar as pomegranate trees numbering 343 located in Survey No. 510 and 136 trees in Survey No. 511 standing in 1.59 acres and 3.00 acres respectively are concerned, the Reference Court awarded an amount of Rs. 4,000/- per tree. For arriving at the said conclusion, the Reference Court placed reliance upon the evidence of RW-2-Shri K. Venkat Reddy, a retired Assistant Director in Horticulture and Research Officer in Regional-II Section, Fruit Research Station and also the evidence of RW-4 who was running a fruit mandi business at Tirupati. No separate compensation was awarded for the lands in Survey Nos. 510 and 511/1.

4. Being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs. 4,000/- per tree, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred the appeal before the High Court. The High Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgment in the case of Special Deputy Collector (LA) Somasila Project, Unit-IV, Rajampet v. Peddireddy Madhava Reddy in A.S. No. 1749 of 2004 dated 1st March, 2013 and reduced the compensation from Rs. 4,000/- per tree to Rs. 2,000/- per tree. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the claimant is before us.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Notification pertaining to A.S. No. 1749 of 2004 relied upon by the High Court relates to 29th December, 1977 whereas the impugned Notification pertaining to the present acquisition relates to 30th April, 1994 and therefore, by efflux of time, the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation for pomegranate trees and without considering the same, the High Court erred in reducing the compensation for pomegranate trees by placing reliance on AS No. 1749 of 2004. Learned counsel further submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of RW-1 and RW-4.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to the judgment in Appeal Suit No. 3798 of 2000 dated 24th September, 2013, as per which, it was submitted that in respect of Notification dated 18th May, 1992 the High Court has awarded only Rs. 2,000/- per tree and, therefore, the High Court was right in reducing the compensation amount from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- per tree.

8. Having carefully perused the judgment in A.S. No. 1749 of 2004, we find that the said case pertains to the Notification dated 29th December, 1977, though it was for the same purpose of submergence under Somashila Project whereas in the present acquisition under consideration, the Notification under Section 4(1) is dated 30th April, 1994 which is merely after 17 years. In the judgment in A.S. No. 3798 of 2000 relied upon by the State, the Notification is dated 18th May, 1992, and in the said case, we find that the claimants thereon restricted their claim at Rs. 900/- per each tree for which they paid the court fee. In the said case, even though claimants thereon restricted the claim to Rs. 900/- per each tree, placing reliance upon the judgment in A.S. No. 1749 of 2004, the High Court has suo motu enhanced the compensation for pomegranate trees @ Rs. 2,000/- per tree. Since the Court has granted the compensation @ Rs. 2,000/- for each tree and the appellants were directed to pay the court fee on the differential amount, the judgment in A.S. No. 3798 of 2000 cannot be relied upon on the basis that only Rs. 2,000/- is to be awarded as a compensation for pomegranate tree.

9. As pointed out earlier, the judgment in A.S. No. 1749 of 2004 relates to the Notification of the year 1977 by which the High Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,000/- per each pomegranate tree. Over the efflux of time, the cost of planting and raising the pomegranate tree has increased multifold and the yield therefrom would fetch more income for the appellant. The High Court ought not to have reduced the compensation to Rs. 2,000/- per each tree.

10. Having regard to the efflux of time and the facts and circumstances of these appeals, we deem it proper to award Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for each of the pomegranate tree in Survey Nos. 510 and 511/1. The appellants shall also be entitled to all statutory payments like solatium and interest on the same.

11. The appeals are allowed in part accordingly.

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 24945-24946/2015

Pidugu Kondala Rayudu ___________________________ Petitioner

v.

The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Tellugu, Ganga Project, Unit-I, Kadapa ____________________________________ Respondent

Date : 29/11/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

(Before R.K. Agrawal and R. Banumathi, JJ.)

For Petitioner(s) Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Adv.

Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

Order

12. Leave granted.

13. The appeals are partly allowed in terms of the signed order.

14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

———

You may also like