IMPORTANT POINTS
When the High Court condoned the delay of 3386 days, then it could not deny to condone delay of 3671 days to a similarly situated agriculturist.
While determining compensation for pomegranate trees the labour involved and constantly rising cost of planting, raising and making commercial use of fruit bearing trees must be considered.

ORDER

R. Banumathi, J.

Leave granted

2. This appeal by way of special leave under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been preferred by the claimant assailing the judgment and order dated 12.07.2016 in L.A.A.S.M.P. No.61 of 2015 in L.A.A.S.(SR) No.12334 of 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh by which the High Court declined to condone the delay of 3671 days in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal.

3. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 01.10.1990 for acquiring land to an extent of Acs.32.77 in Reach No.11 of Nellepalli village for foreshore submersion of Kandaleru Reservoir under Telugu Ganga Project. After conducting the award enquiry, Land Acquisition Officer, Telugu Ganga Project, Rapur passed an award, in Award No.12/91-92 dated 30.01.1992. The award was passed after taking into account the sale statistics for the preceding three years prior to the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act which was obtained from the Sub-Registrar, Rapur and after verification of all sales, the land value is fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and approved by the Special Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore as per norms prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 amended in 1984. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) awarded compensation for cultivable dry lands at Rs. 9,000/- per acre and for cultivable waste land at Rs. 7,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer also awarded compensation of Rs. 50-70 for each lime tree and compensation of Rs. 32 for each pomegranate tree. The land was taken possession on 02.03.1994 and compensation paid to the land owners.

4. As against compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, reference was made under Section 18 of the Act to the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. Before the reference court, on behalf of the claimants, CW-1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the referring officer, one of its employees was examined as R.W.1 and the particulars showing the compensation awarded by the LAO, Ex.B1 was marked. The Reference Court by its judgment and order dated 06.08.2004 in LAOP No.22/1993 enhanced the market value of land from Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- for cultivable dry land and to Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 10000/- for cultivable waste land per acre. Further the Reference Court fixed the market value of the trees to Rs. 100/- per tree as against Rs. 50/- to Rs. 70/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and confirmed the rate of Rs. 32/- per pomegranate tree as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer basing on the age of the trees.

5. Dissatisfied with the enhanced compensation, the appellants/claimants approached the High Court referring to the order in A.S. No.1749/2004 dated 01.03.2013 and other judgments of Andhra Pradesh High Court. However, there was a delay of 3671 days in so preferring the appeal. The High Court dismissed L.A.A.S.(MP) No.61/2015 in L.AA.S. (SR) No.12334/2014 on the ground of inordinate delay of 3671 days since the High Court was of the view that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay and held that the delay sought to be condoned was not on account of a bona fide mistake but was merely intended to make gain basing on the assessment of value of pomegranate trees in the decisions of Peddireddy Madhava Reddy and Pidugu Seshugari Lakshmi Devi.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellants are before us by way of special leave to appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate that the claimants have given satisfactory explanation for the delay of 3671 days in filing the appeal before the High Court and while so the High Court has erred in declining to condone the delay. It was further submitted that in L.A.S.S.No.46/2015, the High Court was pleased to condone the delay of 3386 days in filing the land acquisition appeal suit su