Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Land Acquisition Officer vs K. Ravanamma on 25 February, 2020
Author: C.Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, Battu Devanand
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
L.A.A.S.No.652 of 2006
JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar) This appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), A.P.I.I.C., Visakhapatnam under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") being aggrieved by the order, dated 23.06.2005, passed in O.P.No.48 of 1996 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Visakhapatnam.
2. As seen from the record, originally, the Land Acquisition Officer, after following the due procedure contemplated under law, acquired land to an extent of Ac.8.18 cents covered by Sy.Nos.25/1 to 25/6 of Gandigudem Village in Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District on 17.06.1992 for the purpose of establishing industrial development area vide Award No.5 of 1993, dated 30.04.1993. Out of Ac.8.18 cents, Ac.1.69 cents of inam dry land in Sy.No.25/1 (part) belong to the claimant/respondent and the compensation amount was fixed at Rs.40,000/- per acre and accordingly, the value of Ac.1.69 cents of land was fixed at Rs.67,600/- + value of trees at Rs.14,212/- + structural value at Rs.9,840/- + solatium at 30% i.e., Rs.23,232/- + 12% additional market value at Rs.8,923-20 ps., arriving at a total of Rs.1,23,807- 20 ps. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, more particularly, the manner in which the amount of compensation towards mango trees was awarded, a reference under Section 18 of CPK, J & DEV, J L.A.A.S.No.652 of 2006 2 the Act was sought, which was taken on file as O.P.No.48 of 1996. After considering the material on record, the reference Court fixed the value of fruit bearing mango trees at Rs.508/- for each tree towards annual returns by applying '15' multiplier for 20 trees (Rs.508/- x 20 = Rs.10,160/- x 15 = Rs.1,52,400/-) and a further sum of Rs.9,840/- towards structural value besides solatium, additional market value and interest. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by A.P.I.I.C.
3. Sri J.Ugra Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the finding arrived at by the reference Court in applying multiplier '15' is incorrect though the number of trees for which compensation was awarded and the value fixed towards structures are not disputed.
4. The same is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant.
5. As seen from the record, the report prepared by the Horticulture Department under Ex.B-2 shows that the main crop in the acquired land was mango trees and the age of the trees was between 20 and 30 years and that they were found under "C" category. The compensation was fixed as per G.O.Ms.No.601, dated 19.06.1992, for the trees. The reference Court held at para No.6 as under:
"In Koyappathodi M.Ayisha Umma Vs. State of Kerala1 it is ruled by the Division Bench that there are three methods to be adopted for fixation of compensation for the land acquired, and they are (i) opinion of experts (ii) price paid within reasonable time in bona fide transaction in purchase or sale of lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the land acquired 1 AIR 1991 Supreme Court 2027 CPK, J & DEV, J L.A.A.S.No.652 of 2006 3 having similar advantages (iii) number of years purchase of actual or immediately prospective profits of lands acquired, by the Court. However, it does not preclude from taking into consideration of special circumstances. It is further ruled in this authority that "it is thus settled law that in evaluating the market value of the acquired property, namely, land and the building or the lands with fruit bearing trees standing thereon, value of both would not constitute one unit, but separate units; it would be open to the Land Acquisition Officer or the Court either the assess the lands with all its advantages as potential value and fix the market value thereof, or where there is reliable and acceptable evidence available on record of the annual income of the fruit bearing trees the annual net income multiplied by appropriate capitalisation of 15 years would be the proper and fair method to determine the market value but not both. In the former case the trees are to be separately valued as timber and to decut salvage expenses to cut and remove the trees from the land. In this case the award of compensation was based on both the value of the land and trees. Accordingly the determination of the compensation of the land as well as the trees is illegal."
6. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court and taking into consideration the age of the mango trees, adopting multiplier '15' cannot be said to be illegal, improper, more so, having regard to G.O.Ms.No.601, dated 19.06.1992, referred to above. Hence, the findings and the compensation awarded by the reference Court fixing the compensation for mango trees at the rate of Rs.508/- and applying multiplier '15' for purpose of calculating the value of the trees, cannot be found fault with.
7. According, this appeal is dismissed confirming the order, dated 23.06.2005, passed in O.P.No.48 of 1996 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Visakhapatnam. There shall be no order as to costs.
CPK, J & DEV, J L.A.A.S.No.652 of 2006 4 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR _____________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Date : 25.2.2020 AMD CPK, J & DEV, J L.A.A.S.No.652 of 2006 5 83 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND L.A.A.S.No.652 of 2006 Date : 25.2.2020 AMD