JUDGMENT :

(M. Ganga Rao, J.)

1. This appeal is initially filed by the original claimant, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, ‘the Act’] against the order and decree passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, in OP.No.1 of 1985 dated 20.06.2002, pursuant to the order dated 04.09.2001 passed by this Court in AS.No.3845 of 2000 remanding the matter to the Court below; and seeking compensation of Rs.9,79,200/-for 204 Cashew Nut trees with all statutory benefits.

2. The facts that lead to the filing of the present appeal are that the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahasildar (LA) Unit No.IV, Jangareddigudem, issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, which was published on 10.01.1980, acquiring the land extent Ac.15.81 cents in various survey numbers situated in Vallampatla village for the purpose of ‘Yerrakaluva reservoir scheme’. Out of the said extent, land extent Ac.3.65 cents of dry land in RS.No.76/1A and extent Ac.1.10 cents of dry-wet land in RS.No.90/1B belong to the appellant. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 25.07.1980. The possession of the land was taken on 01.09.1984. The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahasildar Unit 4, Jangareddygudem passed Award No.18/84, dated 05.09.1984. The LAO fixed the market value for the land in RS.No.76/1A and 76/2A at Rs.2,000/-per acre and for the land in Sy.No.90/1B at Rs.5,357/-per acre and for cashew nut trees, the LAO had valued Rs.20/-each. The claimant – land owner, not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the LAO, sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court. The said reference was numbered as OP.No.1 of 1985. The Principal Senior Civil Judge at Eluru, on considering the rival contentions and the evidence available on record, by common order dated 02.02.1998 in OP.Nos.1 & 2 of 1985 fixed the market value for the lands covered by RS.No.76/1A and 76/2A of Vallampatla village @ Rs.5,000/-per acre and for the land covered by RS.No.90/1B of Vallampatla village at Rs.10,000/-per acre. However, the award passed by the LAO with regard to the value of the cashew nut trees was confirmed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred AS.No.3845 of 2000 and this Court by order dated 04.09.2001 while setting aside the order dated 02.02.1998 passed in OP.No.1 of 1985, remanded the matter to the Civil Court for fresh adjudication inter alia observing that the civil court shall decide the claim of the appellant for granting compensation for the land acquired and also for trees on the basis of the report of the Commissioner, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order while giving opportunity to both sides. The Reference Court, on remand, having relied on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Hariyana v. Gurucharan Singh [AIR 1996 (SC) 106], awarded compensation by fixing the market value of the acquired land of the claimant in R.S.No.76/1A at Rs.5,000/-per acre and for the dry wet land in RS.No.90/1B at Rs.20,000/-per acre besides other statutory benefits as envisaged under Section 23(2) of the L.A.Act as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sunder v. Union of India [2001(7) Supreme 37] but declined to grant separate compensation to the fruit bearing cashew nut trees. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed seeking separate compensation for 204 fruit bearing cashew nut trees.

3. Be it noted that during the pendency of the appeal, the sole appellant died and the legal heirs were brought on record.

4. Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri P. Gopal Das, learned counsel for the appellants on record, would contend that this Court in the order dated 04.09.2001 passed in AS.No.3845 of 2000 while setting aside the order dated 02.02.1998 passed in OP.No.1 of 1985 and remitting the matter to the Civil Court for fresh adjudication categorically stated that the Civil Court shall decide the cl