Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Veluturla Rathanamma 4 Others vs The Special Deputy Collector, Nellore ... on 12 December, 2019
Author: C.Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, J. Uma Devi
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI
L.A.A.S. No.40 of 2005
JUDGMENT :(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar) Heard both sides and perused the record.
2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the claimants 3 to 6 aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 18.8.2004 in L.A.O.P. No.57 of 1996 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, wherein the claim of the appellants/claimants seeking compensation for the fruit bearing trees came to be negatived.
3. Brief facts are as under :
An extent of Ac.23.53 cents of the land belonging to the claimants was sought to be acquired for foreshore submersion of Kandaleru reservoir under Telugu Ganga Project in Reach No.2 of Gundavolu Village of Rapur Mandal, Nellore District. A Draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued on 27.6.1992, followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act; and eventually Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award on 23.8.1993 vide Award No.2/93-94. The land was also taken possession by the Land Acquisition Officer on 23.8.1993 for the above project. The Award came to be passed on 23.8.1993 fixing reasonable market value for the lands and paying total compensation of Rs.8,71,274/- to the land owners for the Ac.23.53 cents of land acquired along with trees, plants and existing 2 structures. Not being satisfied with the amount awarded, application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be filed, pursuant to which the matter was referred to civil Court for fixation of just and reasonable compensation. During the course of trial, the claimants examined C.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A15, while Referring Officer examined R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B1. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Reference Court fixed the market value of the category-1 - the rainfed dry lands at Rs.12,000/- per acre instead of Rs.9,500/- fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Court below fixed market value for each lime tree at Rs.100/- which are aged about 5 years and above. The court also awarded additional market value at 12% on enhanced amount from the date of draft notification till date of taking possession of their lands, apart from that, the solatium at 30% on the enhanced market value. Claimants are also held entitled for the interest at 9% for all claims for one year from the date of taking possession, thereafter 15% till realization. Since the Reference Court failed to consider the compensation to be paid to sweet orange trees and pomegranate and less compensation being awarded to lime trees, the present appeal came to be filed.
4. Though various grounds are raised in the appeal filed, the counsel for the appellants/claimants restricts his prayer seeking compensation for five year old fruit bearing trees viz., 367 fruit bearing lime trees, 238 sweet orange trees and 205 pomegranate trees, for which no compensation/less compensation has been 3 awarded. He placed reliance on the judgments of two division bench judgments of this Court in LAAS No.598 of 2006, dated 20- 11-2013 and LAAS No.28 of 2019 and batch, dated 05.11.2019 in support of his plea.
5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Appeals would contend that in the absence of any evidence being adduced with regard to the number of trees, age of trees and their capacity to bear fruits, pleads that claimants are not entitled for any relief. Government Pleader mainly submits that in the absence of report from the Horticulture Department, awarding compensation basing on the claim of the appellants cannot be accepted.
6. As seen from the material available on record, though the report of the Horticulture Department is not placed on record, but, the material filed along with the appeal contains the report prepared.
7. It is to be noted here that even in two judgments of the Division Benches referred to earlier, there was no Report of any Horticulture Department. Therefore, the argument of the learned Government Pleader that no compensation can be awarded in the absence of any report from the Horticulture Department cannot be accepted. Further, if really no compensation has to be awarded, it is strange as to how the Government kept quiet without filing an appeal when an amount of Rs.100/- was fixed per each lime tree by the Reference Court. At this stage, it is to be noted that in 4 LAAS No.598 of 2006, Division Bench of this Court also dealt with the claim made by some of the claimants whose lands were acquired in the same village i.e., Gundavolu Village of Rapur Mandal, with which we are dealing in this present appeal. In the said case, the Court, after considering the report of an expert committee on valuation of lime trees and other evidence on record, more particularly judgment delivered in other LAOPs., fixed the value of the lime tree, mango tree, coconut tree, tamarind tree, pomegranate tree and guava tree. Since the claim of the appellants herein is only with regard to compensation to be paid to fruit bearing trees, we feel that rate fixed by the Division Bench in LAAS No.598 of 2006 can be made the basis, since the rates fixed therein have become final and the same was not challenged before the Higher Court. In fact, Division Bench fixed the market value of trees based on another Division Bench judgment in Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) v. Peddireddy Madhava Reddy and others (A.S. No.1749 of 2004, dated 1.3.2013). Since lands of the appellants herein are adjacent to the lands of the claimants in the said appeal i.e., LAAS No.598 of 2006, there cannot be any variance in value of the trees, more so, when the acquisition and notification of the lands in both areas were almost at the same time.
8. At this stage, learned Government Pleader would submit that there was no water facility to the lands in question and that the lands in the appeal i.e., LAAS No.598 of 2006 are at different places than the lands in the present appeal. It is to be noted here 5 that no evidence has been adduced by the Government to show that the land in Sy.No.406 of Gundavolu Village, Rapur Mandal, and the land in Sy.No.469/A of Gundavolu Village of Rapur Mandal are at different places. The same is without any basis. In view of the fact that the Land Acquisition Act is a beneficial legislation and as most of the claimants are illiterate agricultural ryots, it cannot be expected from them to get report from Horticulture Department in each of the case so as to prove their claim.
9. In LAAS No.28 of 2019 and batch, a Division Bench of this Court relied upon another Division Bench judgment of this Court in LAAS No.417 of 2008 for the purpose of fixing the market value to the fruit bearing trees and awarded compensation basing on the said judgment. Claimants in this case stand on better footing than the claimants in LAAS No.28 of 2019, since the lands of the claimants herein are situated adjacent to the lands which were subject matter in LAAS No.598 of 2006 and hence the argument of the learned Government Pleader that claimants are not entitled to compensation requires to be rejected.
10. Taking into consideration the above facts and having regard to the report showing the expenses of fruit bearing trees, we feel that market value fixed per lime tree can be taken at Rs.3,000/-; per pomegranate tree at Rs.2,000/- and per orange tree at Rs.3,000/-.
6
11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the value of fruit bearing trees by fixing the same in the manner indicated above. The appellants - claimants are also entitled to statutory benefits like 30 % solatium and 12% additional market value on the enhanced amount. They are further entitled to the interest on the enhanced market value at 9% from the date of taking possession up to one year and thereafter 15% till the enhanced amount is paid or deposited in the court. It is made clear that unless and until the appellants - claimants pay the deficit court fee on the differential amount, the decree shall not be drafted.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR ______________________ JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI 12.12.2019 skmr