HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTHA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASEKHAR REDDY A.S.No.3798 of 2000 Date: -09-2013 Between:
Palempalli Sunil Manohar Reddy and another .. Appellants AND The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Telugu Ganga Project, Unit-I, Cuddapah and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTHA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASEKHER REDDY A.S.No.3798 of 2000 ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Rajasekhar Reddy) The present appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants being not satisfied with the award of compensation in respect of Pomegranate trees vide award dated 12-09-2000 in LAOP.No.58 of 1999 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal, are that notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) as approved by the Government was published in A.P. Government Gazette No.12/IGI/92, dated 18-05-1992 for acquiring the lands in various extents in Chanduvai village, Atloor Mandal, Cuddapadh District, for the purpose of submergence under Somasila Project. After following due procedure as contemplated under the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer passed award under Section 11 of the Act, awarding compensation. Not satisfied with the said compensation, the petition under Section 18 of the Act was filed and the same was referred to the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, which came to be registered as LAOP.No.58 of 1999. The reference Court, basing on the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the reference and passed the award, which reads as under:
1) that the market value fixed for 0.48 cents of land in S.No.357/2 pertaining to the claimant No.1 Dulla Subbareddy is enhanced by 100% over and above the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer;
2) it is further ordered that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the lands and all types of trees situated in S.No.354/1, 354/2 and 354/4 pertaining to the claimant No.2 Sunil Manohar Reddy is raised by three times of the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the lands and trees put together;
3) It is further ordered that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of Ac.0.54 cents of land and trees S.No.354/3 pertaining to the claimant No.3 Eswaramma is also enhanced by three times the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the lands and trees put together;
4) It is further ordered that an amount of Rs.20,000/- is fixed to be paid as market value for the thatched house that was situated in S.No.354/1 pertaining to claimant No.2 Sunil Manohar Reddy;
5) The claimants are entitled to solatium at 30% and also additional market value at 12% on the enhanced market value;
6) The claimants are also entitled for interest on the enhanced market value at 9% p.a. from the date of taking possession up to one year and thereafter at 15% p.a. till the enhanced compensation amount is paid or deposited into court;
7) that the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants in respect of Pomegranate trees only.
3. Heard the learned counsel for both sides.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the reference Court should have granted compensation to the Pomegranate trees on the yield basis by applying appropriate multiplier. Instead, the reference Court simply enhanced the compensation by three times. He placed reliance on the judgment in A.S.No.1749 of 2004 wherein this Court, basing on the evidence, determined the value of each Pomegranate tree at Rs.2,000/-. He further contended that the acquisition in that case pertains to the year 1977, whereas the notification in the present case is in the year 1992 and that there is time gap of 15 years between the notification in A.S.No.1749 of 2004 and the notification in the present case. He further contended that if 15% escalation price is to be applied, it would come to Rs.16,265/- and that every year the fruit cost is increasing at least 10% on its cost as the Pomegranate is king of fruits, but the appellants-claimants restricted the same to Rs.4,000/-. He further contended that as per the norms of the NABARD, the economic fruit bearing period is 25 years. By the time of the notification in the present case, the age of tree is 4 years. He further submitted that as per the decision reported in (2006) 2 SCC 670 life time X income = 25 X 400 = 10,000/-. As per the NABARD, each Pomegranate tree yields 100 to 150 fruits and by the time of notification, each fruit cost is Rs.3/- and even if 150 fruits are taken into account, each tree will yield an income of Rs.450/- out of which the agricultural expenses have to be deducted, and that each tree will be earning Rs.400/- per year, and if it multiplied by 10, it would come to Rs.4,000/- per tree. He further contended that since the Division Bench of this Court has already decided the issue in respect of Pomegranate trees fixing the value of each Pomegranate tree at Rs.2,000/-, the same value can be fixed for the pomegranate trees in the present case.
Further, the evidence of PW.2 shows that compensation was not assessed for 650 pomegranate trees and that there were 2050 trees in total and they were aged four years. He further deposed that each tree produced 200 fruits and that each tree was yielding income of Rs.400/- per tree. He further deposed that Exs.A.4 to A.18, the bills for the sale of fruits, show the cost of the fruits. The evidence of PW.3-Theppeta Eswaramma also shows that there were 191 Pomegranate trees and the compensation was assed only for 168 trees. The trees were aged about 6 years and each tree produced 200 fruits for a period of 12 years and the value of each tree is Rs.2,000/-. He further deposed that Exs.A.30 to A.42 are the bills for sale of fruits.
Having regard to the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and Exs.A.4 to A.18 and A.30 to A.42 and in view of the fact that the Division Bench of this Court has already considered the issue elaborately and fixed the value of Pomegranate trees at Rs.2,000/- per tree in A.S.No.1749 of 2004, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent, we deem it appropriate to extend the same benefit of determining the value in respect of Pomegranate trees in the present case also.
However, it is to be noted that in the grounds of appeal, the appellants-claimants restricted their claim at Rs.900/- for each tree for which they paid the court fee. Now, since the compensation is granted at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per each tree, the appellants-claimants are liable to pay court fee on the differential amount.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed enhancing the value of Pomegranate trees at Rs.2,000/- per tree. The appellants- claimants are also entitled to statutory benefits like 30% solatium and 12% additional market value on the enhanced amount and they 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.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
ASHUTHOSH MOHUNTA, J A. RAJASEKHER REDDY, J Date: -09-2013 Ksn