In land acquisition cases, where specific yield-based capitalization is not fully supported by evidence, courts may determine compensation for fruit-bearing trees based on consistent judicial precedents and fixed per-tree values to ensure reasonable and uniform compensation.

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 529 days in filing the above appeal and to pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2018

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings n pursuance of the decree and judgment dated 23.12.2016 in LAOP.No.529 of 2010 on the file of the VI Addl.District Judge, Kadapa and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in pursuant of Ep.No. 134/2017 in LAOP 529/2010 on the file of VI Additional District judge, Kadapa pending disposal of the above appeal

The Court made the following:

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)

1. The Land Acquisition Appeal Suit No.454 of 2017 filed by the claimant and Land Acquisition Appeal Suit No.263 of 2018 filed by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short “LAO) against the order, dated 23.12.2016 passed in LAOP No.529 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa (hereinafter referred to as “Reference Court”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their ranking in the Reference Court.

3. The brief facts of the case:

(i) The land to an extent of Ac.33.22 cents lying in different survey numbers of Parnapalli Village, Lingala Mandal, was acquired for construction of Spill Way of Chitravati Balancing Reservoir at Parnapalli Village. The draft notification was published in Gazette, dated 14.02.2001. The draft declaration was passed in Gazette, dated 16.02.2001. The said lands are rain-fed lands. Nature of the lands is red soil and black cotton soil. Rain-fed crops like ground-nut, etc., were being raised.

(ii) Ac.4-04 cents out of 12.10 cents lying in Sy.No.381 of Parnapalli belonged to the claimant were acquired. In the said extent of Ac.4.04 cents, there were 460 Guava trees, 04 Mango trees and 01 Sapota tree. The land was said to be irrigated with bore-well water. The LAO had considered 57 sale deeds pertaining to surrounding lands of Parnapalli Village during three years prior to the date of notification i.e., from February, 1999 to February, 2002. Considering the value of the sales of such lands, the LAO fixed the value for Ac.1-00 cents at Rs.35,500/-. With regard to the value of the fruit bearing Guava trees raised in the land of the claimant, the report of the Horticulture Officer was considered basing on G.O.Ms.No.601, Revenue (LA) Department, dated 16.06.1992 and awarded Rs.1,43,420/-. In addition to the market value, solatium at 30% as provided under Section 23(2) of the Act, 12% additional market value from the date of draft notification i.e., 26.02.2001 to the date of award, dated 05.08.2002 were granted.

4. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the LAO, the claimant filed claim application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “Act”) for referring the award No.8/2002-2003 passed by the LAO. Accordingly, the LAO referred the matter to the Reference Court.

5. The claim of the claimant before the Reference Court is that the LAO has not followed correct method for fixing the market value of the acquired land and Ac.1-00 cents was worth Rs.1,00,000/- and the subject land was garden land irrigated with the help of bore-wel