The Special Deputy Collector La vs Thiragabathina Pullaiah 4 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 5353 AP

                               1




       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI
                        &
   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

                   L.A.A.S No.139 of 2015

JUDGMENT:(per A.V. Sesha Sai, J)

      Special    Deputy     Collector(Land     Acquisition)/Land

Acquisition Officer, Rapur @ Nellore is the appellant in the

present Land Acquisition Appeal Suit, preferred under Section

54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

      2.    The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a

notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894(for short 'The Act') on 04.11.1989, proposing to acquire

the land to an extent of Ac.38.66 cents situated in the village of

Penubarthi Village. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an

award bearing No.31 of 1989, dated 01.12.1989, fixing the

compensation for the land and the trees situated therein. Being

dissatisfied with the quantum fixed by the Land Acquisition

Officer, the claimants/respondents herein sought reference

under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be numbered as

L.A.O.P.No.01 of 2009, on the file of the Court of the V

Additional District and Sessions Judge - cum -Motor vehicle

accidents claims Tribunal, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

3. In order to substantiate their case, claimants

examined PW.Nos.1 to 8 and marked Ex's.Nos.A1 to 9

documents on their behalf. On behalf of the State, RWs.1 and 2

were examined and Ex.B1/Xerox copy of the Award was

marked. The Presiding Officer of the Reference Court passed an

Award on 17.12.2014, enhancing the compensation in respect

of the trees and land. The Reference Court granted Rs.11,000/-

per each pomegranate tree, Rs.14,000/- per each lemon tree,

Rs.24,000/- per each tamarind tree, Rs.1,500/- per each

palmyrah tree, Rs.14,000/- per each mango tree,Rs.11,000/-

per each regu tree, Rs.14,000/- per each guava tree,

Rs.14,000/- per each coconut tree, Rs.20,000/- per each

soapnut tree and Rs.11,000/- per each drumstick tree. The

Reference Court also fixed the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-

per acre towards the land. In the above background, the State

came up before this Court with the present appeal under

Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act.

4. Broadly, there are two(2) contentions raised by the

learned Advocate General. They are:-

1. There cannot be separate compensation for land and trees in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

State of State of Haryana Vs. Gurcharan Singh and another1.

2. The compensation awarded towards tress is also exorbitant and without any basis or foundation.

5. On the contrary, learned Senior Counsel

Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy submits that the compensation for

both the lands and trees is permissible in view of the Judgment

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.Subbarayudu and

Ors Vs. The Special Deputy Collector(Land Acquisition)2.

6. In the above background, now the issues that

emerge for consideration of this Court in the present Appeal

are:-

1) Whether the fixation of separate compensation for the

land and trees, while assessing the value of garden

lands is permissible?

2) Whether the Reference Court is justified in enhancing

the compensation payable towards the trees?

7. In order to deal with Issue No.1 mentioned supra, it

may be appropriate to refer to the Judgment cited by the

learned Advocate General. In the case of State of Haryana Vs.

Gurcharan Singh, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with

1995 Supp(2) SCC 637

2017 (10) SCJ 546

the issue of compensation for both the lands and trees, held in

the following manner:-

" 3. Ms. Surichi Agarwal, learned counsel for the State, contended that the High Court has committed grave error of law in upholding the determination of the compensation both to the land as well as fruit bearing trees and has also further committed error in enhancing the market value to the fruit bearing trees in addition to the confirmation of the compensation separately awarded for the land and the fruit bearing trees. It is against the settle principle of law as laid down by this court in catena of decisions. We find force in the contention. Sri Bagga, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that in the year 1966 the price index was at 144 points whereas in 1970 the index was found to be at -213 points. The High Court, therefore, was right in increasing the compensation to the fruit bearing trees by 60%. We find no force in the contention. It is settled law that the Collector or the court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to the value of the acquired land. The market value is determined on the basis of the yield. Then necessarily applying suitable multiplier, the compensation need to be awarded. Under no circumstances the court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well as fruit bearing trees. In other words, market value of the land is determined twice over and one on the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got from the fruit bearing trees. The definition of the land

includes the benefits to arise from the land as defined in s.3(a) of the Act. After compensation is determined on the basis of the value of the land from the income applying suitable multiplier, then the trees would be valued only as fire-wood and necessary compensation would be given. In this case, the High Court did not adopt this procedure. We have looked into the figures furnished in the judgment of the High Court of the amount awarded by the Officer himself. He too while determining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,240/- per acre on the basis of the yield, the multiplier applied is more than 8 years. Under no circumstances, the multiplier should be more than 8 years multiplier as it is settled law of this court in catena of decisions that when the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the trees or plantation, 8 years multiplier shall be appropriate multiplier. For agricultural land 12 years multiplier shall be suitable multiplier".

8. In view of the law laid down, in the aforesaid

mentioned Judgment, this Court finds sufficient force in the

submissions of the learned Advocate General. Though the

learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the Judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Subbarayudu and

Ors Vs. The Special Deputy Collector(Land Acquisition), in

the said Judgment, the aspect of permissibility for payment of

compensation for both the trees and lands did not fall for

consideration and as such the said Judgment would not render

any assistance to the case of the 1st respondent herein.

9. Coming to Issue No.2, as regards quantum of

compensation payable to the trees, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Civil Appeal Nos.11404-11405 of 2016, vide order,

dated 29.11.2016, fixed compensation of Rs.3,000/- for each

pomegranate tree. It is also brought to the notice of this Court

that, in similar circumstances, this Court vide order,

dated 05.11.2019, in L.A.A.S.No.28 of 2019 and batch, fixed

compensation in respect of Mango, Acid Lime, Coconut, Guava,

Jack-fruit and 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,

Pomegranate @ Rs.2,500/- per tree and Cashew nut trees @

Rs.2,500/- per tree.

10. Following the aforesaid order, earlier, this Court

vide order, dated 04.08.2023, disposed of L.A.A.S.No.15 of

2015. A copy of the said order is placed on record.

11. In view of the above reasons and the principles laid

down in the aforesaid Judgments, this Appeal filed by the State

is allowed in part, setting aside the grant of separate

compensation towards the land and trees. The compensation

granted towards the trees by the Reference Court shall remain

intact.

12. Order and Decree of the Court of the learned V

Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District in

L.A.O.P.No.01 of 2009 stands modified accordingly. There shall

be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case, shall

stand closed.

__________________ A.V. SESHA SAI, J

___________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J Date: 07.10.2023 TM

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

L.A.A.S No.139 of 2015

(per A.V. Sesha Sai, J)

Date:07.10.2023

TM