1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: NANDYAL
PRESENT: Sri V. Srinivasulu, B.Com., B.L.,
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.
Saturday the 2nd day of May, 2015
LAOP.496/2008
Special Deputy Collector cum LAO, TGP, Nandyal.
…... Referring Officer - Versus –
S.Eswar Reddy, aged about 60 years, s/o.Chinnapureddy,Hindu, agriculturist, r/o.Gopavaram village, Mahanandi mandal, Kurnool district . . . . . Claimant/Respondent
This petition is coming on before me for final order in the presence of Assistant Government Pleader for Referring
Officer/petitioner and Sri.M.Uma Maheswara Reddy and
Sri.G.V.N.Suresh, Advocates for Respondents/claimants, and the matter stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:
O R D E R
The Special Deputy Collector/LAO, Telugu Ganga Project referred the matter to the court u/sec.18 (2)of LA Act stating that an extent of Ac.1-62 cents in sy.No.214/A2 of Gopavaram village in Mahanandi mandal acquired for excavation of major distributory in block 13 under TGP and fixed the compensation of
Rs.3,34,482/-and passed the award in award No.10/07-08 dated 30-7-07 for the acquired land of the claimant S.Eswar Reddy the market value fixed at Rs.54,000/-per acre and the amount has been paid towards compensation but the claimant filed a petition 2 claiming the compensation at Rs.22,00,000/-per acre under a protest petition but he has not produced any material before him and he has not adduced any oral evidence before him at the time of Sec.4(1)notification or at the time of acquisition of the land to fix the market value at Rs.22,00,000/-per acre.
The LAO fixed the market value of the acquired land of the claimant at Rs.54,000/-per acre on the basis of material available with him and also fixed the compensation for the malbari crop at
Rs.1,18,960/-and compensation for the 34 mango trees
Rs.28,766/-and for 18 mango plants Rs.3050/-and for one Neredu tree Rs.1079/-and for 6 teak trees Rs.3501/-but the claimant has not satisfied with the compensation fixed by the LAO and filed the claim petition before him to an enhance the market value of the acquired land at Rs.22,00,000/-per acre. Hence the reference to assess and fix the fair market value as per the material available on record.
2. The claimant filed a detailed claim statement denying the contents and allegations of the LAO, stating that the LAO has fixed the market value of the acquired land including malbari crop and standing trees in a low manner; the market value and compensation fixed by the LAO is very meager and not proper.
The LAO has not taken the fertility and potentiality of the land and he has not taken the crop of the malbari in Ac.0-80 cents and 34 mango trees neredu tress and mango plants and teak trees, into consideration he has not fixed the market value properly. The
LAO has acquired Ac.0-80 cents of land of malbari crop and the 3 land of 34 mango trees, and 6 teak trees, one neredu tree and 18 mango plants and fixed the market value at Rs.1,88,960/-and for 34 mango trees the market value fixed at Rs.28,766/-a sum of
Rs.1,079/-fixed for one neredu tree and Rs.357/-fixed for 6 teak trees and Rs.3050/-fixed for 18 mango plants.
The claimant further submits that they are having joint family consisting of brothers and sisters and they are having total extent of Land Ac.8-00 cents in sy.No.214/A out of which they are raised malbari crop in Ac.1-25 cents in the name of Anasuyamma and Ac.1-25 cents in the name of S.Shireesha and they have taken technical opinion from the Assistant Director of Sericulture,
Nandyal. The Assistant Director of Sericulture, Nandyal has given subsidy for raising of malbari crop a shed was constructed in the length of 10 feet in a width of 20 feet it costs about Rs.3,00,000/- for raising of malbari crop 1800 silk worms are growing and they used to get 500 kgs of cocoons the costs of each Kg of cocone is
Rs.250/-they used to get Rs.1,20,000/-per crop.
Due to the acquisition of the land the entire malbari crop was damaged. The LAO has not assessed the damage properly.
There is malbari crop and shed in the neighbouring lands to an extent of Ac.1-70 cents with shed he has not taken into consideration of other malbari crop and shed for fixation of the market value. The claimants have lost Rs.4,00,000/-worth of malbari crop in Ac.0 -80 cents, and the malbari crop is damaged in the unacquired land also.
4
Further submits that the LAO classified 34 big mango trees, 18 mango plants but the entire 52 mango trees are fruit bearing trees, the claimant used to get Rs.50,000/-per year from the mango trees and the mango trees will give yielding from 25 to 30 years and they have lost Rs.6,00,000/-of crop from the mango garden, from one neredu tree they have lost Rs.30,000/-per crop.
The costs of 6 teak trees is about Rs.1,00,000/-. As such the LAO has not properly valued of malbari crop; mango trees; teak trees and neredu tree properly and the market value not properly fixed and prayed to fix the market value for the malbari crop, mango trees, neem tree and teak trees at Rs.49,00,000/-in all.
3. At the time of enquiry totally three witnesses are examined as RWs.1 to 3 on behalf of the claimants and Exs.B1 to B8 are marked. On behalf of the LAO no witnesses are examined, but the Ex.A1 is marked. Ex.A1/Copy of award proceedings and award.
4. Heard the arguments on both sides and also verified the entire records to fix the market value of the acquired lands of the claimants.
5. The following points have been raised to fix the market value of the acquired land.
(1)Whether the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition
Officer for the damage of the malbari crop, mango trees and teak trees, neredu tree is very poor, very low and meager and not proper?
(2)Whether the claimant is entitled to fix the market value of the acquired lands and also for the damages of the malbari 5 crop and mango trees, neredu tree and teak trees at
Rs.49,00,000/-?
(3)To what relief?
6. POINT No.1: The learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the LAO argued, that at the time of sec.4(1)notification or at the time of acquisition of the land from the claimant they have not produced any material before the LAO or they have not adduced any oral evidence to enhance the market value at
Rs.22,00,000/- to Rs.49,00,000/-of the acquired lands and also for malbari crop and for mango garden and teak trees. The LAO fixed the market value for the acquired land for sum of Rs.54,000/-per acre, for malbari crop raised in Ac.0-80 cents at Rs.1,18,960/-per acre and for 34 mango trees Rs.28,766/-and for 18 mango plants
Rs.3050/-and for neredu tree for sum of Rs.1079/- and for teak trees for sum of Rs.357/-as such the LAO has estimated the market value for the above said items, and the acquired land; and fixed the market value fairly and properly. The claim of the claimant is very high for Rs.49,00,000/-to fix the market value for all the above said items and land. The learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the LAO further argued that the claimant has not produced any material before the court to enhance the market value of the acquired land and malbari crop and mango trees and other trees as claimed, for and prayed to fix the market value estimated by the LAO which is proper and conform the same and to dismiss the claim petition.
6
7. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the market value fixed by the LAO for the acquired land and also for the malbari crop damaged in Ac.0-80 cents and for 52 mango trees and 6 teak trees and one neredu tree is very poor and proper. He further argued that they have constructed a shed to raise malbari crop in 40 feet length, 20 feet width it costs
Rs.3,00,000/-. They used to get 800 mango fruits per tree per year for crop and used to get 500 kgs of cocoons; the costs of each one kg of cocoon is Rs.250/-and they used to get
Rs.1,20,000/-per crop likewise they used to get 5 crops per year.
The remaining entire malbari crop is also damaged in view of the acquiring of Ac.0-80 cents of land damaging of malbari crop in
Ac.0-80 cents. Because they have raised malbari crop in Ac.1-25 cents in one item and Ac.1-25 cents in other item in the name of
Anasuyamma and S.Sheerisha.
8. The learned counsel for the claimants further argued that the LAO did not take above said malbari crop and future estimation and yielding in fixing of the market value and damages as such the claimants have lost Rs.40,00,000/-towards malbari crops in Ac.0-80 cents. The LAO calculated and classified the 34 big mango trees and 18 mango plants which are not food bearing seeds but all the entire 52 mango trees are fruit bearing trees, they ysed to get Rs.50,000/-from the mango trees per year.
Because the mango trees will yielding from 40 to 45 years as such they have lost Rs.6,00,000/-from the mango trees. For the damage of neredu tree they have lost Rs.13000/-per year and 7 towards 6 teak trees they have lost Rs.1,00,000/-. As such they have sustained a loss of Rs.49,00,000/-for the acquisition of the land and prayed to fix the market value of the entire damage and acquisition of the land at Rs.49,00,000/-.
9. The learned counsel further argued that the LAO passed the award of Rs.1,88,960/-per malbari crop and damages estimated by the LAO is very poor and the market value fixed by the LAO is very meager and further argued that the claimant is agriculturist their livelihood is agriculture they have no any other source of income except agriculture if the market value fixed properly and fairly it is irreparable loss and injury to the claimants, as the claimants are having joint family and they are depending upon their agriculture.
10. The learned counsel for the claimants further argued that malbari crop and fruit bearing mango trees and neredu tree and other teak trees and for other damages and LAO assessed very meager and poor amount towards damages to fix the market value of the acquired lands and prayed to enhance the market value for the acquired lands, towards damages of the malbari crop, mango trees, teak trees and neredu tree at Rs.49,00,000/- otherwise it is irreparable loss and injury to the claimant.
11. On verification of the evidnece of RWs.1 to 3 it is observed that RW.1 is the claimant herein. He deposed supporting the pleadings of the claim statement in all the aspects stating that the LAO fixed the market value of the malbari crop, mango trees, neredu tree, neem tree and teak trees in a low 8 manner which is not proper; without proper assessment and estimation without any material basis he fixed the market value of the acquired land of the claimant.
12. The learned counsel for the claimants further argued that the land of the claimant to an extent of Ac.1-62 cents was acquired by the LAO for construction of TGP canal and the market value fixed at Rs.54,000/-per acre but he has not properly valued about the malbari crop raised in the Ac.0-80 cents and 34 mango trees and one neem tree and one neredu tree and 6 teak trees. In the year 1984 in Thimmapuram village the LAO acquired lands for which the Hon’ble High Court fixed the market value per acre
Rs.65,000/-under Ex.B1 there is no any other sales in the vicinity of the land acquired area at the time of sec.4(1)notification.
Thimmapuram village is a adjoining village of the claimant lands because, the claimants lands is situated in Gopavaram village which is adjoining village to Thimmapuram village.
13. The learned counsel for the claimants further argued that the acquired lands and Thimmapuram village lands are having same potentiality and same pattern of crop yielding. The LAO has not taken into consideration of neighbouring village land sales.
The total lands of Sericulture is estimated as Rs.15,00,000/-and for the yielding of mango trees the market value is fixed at
Rs.6,00,000/-; for 40 years of span of life of mango trees and for 15 years span of life sericulture can be taken into consideration for calculation and prayed to fix the market value of the acquired land for Rs.3,00,000/-per acre and Rs.15,00,000/-for damages of 9
Sericulture and Rs.6,00,000/-for damages 52 mango trees and
Rs.50,000/-for damage of one neem tree and one neredu tree.
14. To prove the contention of the claimant/RW.1 eight exhibits are marked. Ex.B1 is common judgement in appeal
No.3184/1992 and its batch OPs, passed by the Hon’ble High
Court in the year 1996. Ex.B2 is the FMB sketch of Thimmapuram mandal. Exs.B3 and B4 are the pattadar passbooks. Exs.B4 and
B5 are 1B Namuna extract of ROR, Ex.B7 is the digital adangal phahani, Ex.B8 is the genealogy certificate of the family members of the claimant to show that the extent of land of the claimant and its sy.Nos and also in respect of raising of sericulture/malbari crop and also in respect of the mango garden of the claimant.
15. It is clearly mentioned in the award proceedings of the
LAO stating that he has acquired Ac.1-62 cents of land from the claimant and market value fixed at Rs.54,000/-per are and also malbari crop damaged in Ac.0-80 cents and its market value fixed at Rs.1,18,960/-including 34 mango trees the LAO fixed the market value of Rs.1,31,810/-; for one neem tree, fixed the market value at Rs.1078/-for 6 teak trees fixed market value at
Rs.351/-.
16. It is an admitted fact that there is loss and damage of sericulture in the Ac.0-80 cents and also 52 mango trees, and neredu tree and 6 teak trees. As such Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 are supporting the claim of RW.1 and the same is clearly admitted by the LAO in his award proceedings. Accordingly the LAO fixed the market value for the damages of sericulture and trees totally for 10
Rs.3,34,842/-with statutory benefits. Now the main question is whether the LAO has fixed the market value in a low manner and fixed the damages of malbari crop and mango trees and teak trees with poor estimation or not ?
17. RW.2 is the Assistant Director of Sericulture according to him wife of claimant by name Anasuyamma raised malbari crop in the acquired land and also Shireesha raised malbari crop in the acquired land to an extent of Ac.1-25 cents as such both of them have raised malbari crop in Ac.2-55 cents being the family members of the claimant in the year 2004 for which they gave subsidy for Rs.3,000/-there will be yielding of malbari crop; it gives 3 to 4 crops per year. Sometimes it is also possible to raise 5 crops if the season is favourable to the crop. The yielding from each crop will be Rs.90,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-and expenditure will be Rs.25,000/-per acre. Once sericulture crop started it given yielding for 12 to 15 years continuously if the water is available.
18. RW.3 is the Agricultural Officer. According to him the claimant and his family members raised malbari crop in the acquired land, they have also raised mango trees and other crops like paddy and termaric. The yielding of each mango tree per year will be 800 to 1000 fruits, the minimum costs of one fruit at the time of sec.4(1)notification was Rs.10/-. The claimant used to get income of Rs.10,000/-per tree. The mango tree will start yielding after 5 years of age, in the land of the claimant there are seven years old trees. The mango trees will give good yielding for 40 years continuously.
11
19. RW.2 and RW.3 being the technical experts of malbari crop and other agricultural and commercial crop gave their opinion in respect of the income of the malbari crop per year and also the yielding of mango trees per year.
20. No witnesses are examined on behalf of the LAO but
Ex.A1 is marked, Ex.A1 is a award proceedings and award copy along with sec.4(1)notification. According to Ex.A1 the LAO passed the award on 3-7-07 in award No.10/07-08 the compensation of the acquired land and malbari crop, mango trees and teak trees and one neredu tree fixed, at Rs.3,34,482/-with statutory benefits but the LAO has not explained the basic reasons, under which basis he assessed the loss of malbari crop and damages of mango trees and teak trees and neredu tree, under which basis he estimated the compensation of the mango trees and malbari crop; the LAO has also not properly explained about the fixation of the market value of the acquired lands, without giving proper estimation and proper assessment and basic records. The fixation of the market value of the acquired land and also fixation of the compensation for the loss and malbari crop and damages of mango trees are not proper it is in a low manner. The LAO has not taken the opinion of technical experts of malbari crop and mango garden such as sericulture experts; without taking any estimation or any opinion of sericulture experts the fixation of the compensation of the malbari crop and mango trees and crop is not proper.
12
21. In a similar case the LAO prepared appeal before the
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in appeal suit
No.1901/1998. The Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool district passed the orders in OP.150/1993 in that case the LAO passed the award fixing the compensation for sericulture garden at
Rs.21,980/-per acre per year with statutory benefits. Accordingly the LAO awarded the total amount of compensation of
Rs.1,56,184-05; 80% of the amount paid to the claimant. Again the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur, Kurnool district being the
Referral Officer fixed the compensation of damaging of malbari crop at Rs.1,76,000/-per acre with 8 years crop multiplication, of capitalization method in that case the LAO, SRBC preferred appeal in AS.No.1901/1998.
22. In the above said judgment the Hon’ble High Court held that the maximum yield of sericulture crop would be lasting of 15 years and its span of life is 15 to 20 years. It is depends upon the circumstances i.e water and whether. The cocoons are the final product of the malbari crop and nearly 252 to 300 silk warms laying for Ac.1-00 crop. PW.2 being the technical expert of sericulture crop clearly deposed in the above said citation stating that the claimant used to get 50 kgs of cocoons for 100 layings like that they used to get 750 kgs of cocoons per are per year.
The rate of 1kg of cocoons will be Rs.100/- to 150/- per kg in the market and they used to get Rs.1,12,500/-per acre per year. The expenditure generally will be Rs.40,000/-to Rs.50,000/-.
13
23. A part of the land of malbari crop is occupied by the LAO for SRBC. In the above said case and the remaining part is damaged; to get the compensation for the remaining damaged part a capitalization method shall be applied by multiplying annual income with 10, which is proper multiplier in fixing of the compensation for the lands of the malbari crop. In the above said case the Hon’ble High Court referred other Supreme Court judgments and declared that for the recovery of damages of remaining part of the malbari crop 10 is the proper multiplier which is just and proper. The above said citation in
AS.No.1901/1998 is very suitable reference in the present case in
fixation of the market value of malbari crop for compensation.
The Hon’ble High Court referred the citation reported in
AIR 1994 SC Page.333
and decided the capitalization method in fixation of the market value of the sericulture for the remaining part of the damages, including the damages of the acquisition of the land of the LAO, and decided that the capitalization method is the best method to fix the compensation; for the remaining damage of malbari crop with 10 multiplier over the market value fixed per year per acre.
24. In the present case on hand PW.2 being the sericulture crop technical expert, clearly deposed supporting the facts and circumstances of the appeal in AS.No.1901/1998 stating that the span of life of malbari crop will be 15 years and per year 5 to 6 crops will be yielding; nearly Rs.1,12,000/-will be annual income per acre per year; after deducting the expenditure the annual 14 income per year per acre will be Rs.70,000/-on capitalization method it can be taken into consideration by 10 years multiplication taking into consideration of 10 years yield instead of 15 years after deducting the expenditure.
25. It is very clear that PW.2 being the technical expert of malbari crop has explained the expenditure and income of malbari crop supporting the facts and circumstances and calculations of the appeal in AS.No.1901/1998 of the Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh. The Hon’ble justice Sri
N.Y.Hanumanthappagaru and Hon’ble Justice Sri.A.Gopal
Reddygaru clearly discussed in the above said judgment, the
Hon’ble High Court referred the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment
reported in
“AIR 1994 SC page.323”
and decided the rate of the cocoons and layings of silk warms and capitalization method and yielding of 10 multiplier as discussed above.
26. In the present case it is an admitted fact that the claimants family raised sericulture in the extent of Ac.2-50 cents and the LAO acquired the land in Ac.1-62 cents and in Ac.0-80 cents of land malbari crop is damaged on acquisition of the land by the LAO, and the remaining part of the crop in an extent of
Ac.1-70 cents out of Ac.2-50 cents is also damaged in that circumstances to fix the compensation for the damages, the capitalization method shall be applied; application of 10 multiplier 15 is proper and just instead of 15 years yielding, because PW.2 being the technical expert of sericulture clearly explained the span of malbari crop is 15 years but the Hon’ble High Court and
Supreme Court in the above said citations is also decided a proper multiplier as 10 years yielding stating that instead of 15 years, 10 years is the proper multiplier to fix the compensation for the damaged crop by capitalization method, taking into consideration of the calculation of the compensation per year per acre.
27. In the present case PW.1 being the claimant and PW.2 being the technical malbari crop experts deposed supporting the contents of the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of the
Andhra Pradesh and Supreme Court of India, stating that the claimant will get Rs.70,000/-per acre per year after deducting the expenditure of malbari crop. As such the claimant will get a sum of Rs.70,000/-of net income per acre and per year. If 10 years yielding taken into consideration by applying capitalization method it comes to Rs.7,00,000/-per year per acre [Rs.70,000/- X 10= Rs.7,00,000/-] including the damage of the remaining amount. In the present case the LAO acquired Ac.0-80 cents of land of the malbari crop. The market value of Ac.0-80 cents of land per malbari crop is Rs.5,60,000/- on calculation (Rs.7,00,000/- X 80) = Rs.5,60,000/-] 100
But the LAO fixed the market value without proper calculation and estimation and without following any methods.
16
28. According to the citation reported in
AIR SCW 2005-0-345 and AIR SC 2005-0-749
the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there were several methods in valuation of the compensation such as (1) opinion of experts, (2) the price paid within reasonable time in bonafied purchase for transaction of the land acquired (3) number of years purchased of the actual or immediately prospective profit of the land acquired.
29. In the present case following the citations of Supreme
Court and Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh the opinion of expert is taken into consideration and the market value of the damaged malbari crop is fixed on capitalization method, taking into consideration of 10 multiplier i.e 10 years profit instead of 15 years profit because the span of life of the malbari crop is 15 years; some time the malbari crop will not consistent up to 15 years continuously, there will be some up and downs in the yielding of malbari crop; due to some natural calamities lack of rain, water and sometimes thufans and other problems.
Therefore 10 years multiplication is taken into consideration applying capitalization method and fixed the market value of the malbari crop per acre per year at Rs.70,000/- X 10 =
Rs.7,00,000/-. The crop is damaged in Ac.0-80 cents, on calculation the compensation is fixed at Rs.5,60,000/-.(Rs.70,000/-
X 80)= Rs.5,60,000/-.
17
30. The LAO has also acquired some lands where the mango garden is situated, the LAO counted 34 fruit bearing mango trees and 18 mango sapling/mango aged about 3 years plants which are not coming for yielding. The LAO has also identify one neredu tree, 6 teak trees and fixed very poor market value; for 34 mango fruit bearing trees, the LAO fixed the market value at Rs.28,766/- and one neredu tree for sum of Rs.1079/- towards compensation and Rs.357/- for 6 teak trees and Rs.3050/-for 18 mango plants.
But the LAO has not followed the opinion of the expert or capitalization method in fixing the market value of 34 mango trees and 18 mango plants aged about 3 years which are ready for yielding fruits and also not fixed the market value of one neredu tree and 6 teak trees, the LAO generally and commonly assessed and fixed the market value without following any methods.
31. In a case in appeal No.10362/2010 RDO, Kurnool preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against one M.Rama Krishna Reddy, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India clearly explained the method of capitalization in fixation of the market value of the fruit bearing trees. In the above said citation the respondents are the owners of the sweet lime orchard measuring Ac.4-38 cents situated in Singanapalli village of Owk mandal of Kurnool district in Andhra Pradesh.
32. The LAO fixed the market value at Rs.16,000/-per acre, and the referral court determined the market value of the entire extent at Rs.12,28,500/-by capitalization method with statutory 18 benefits. The LAO aggrieved by the orders of the referral court, and preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court opinioned that the claimant/respondent
raised 350 sweet lime trees in the entire orchard. The annual income per tree is fixed at Rs.370/-; on the basis of the opinion of the technical expert and fixed the market value per acre per year at Rs.94,500/-(350 X 270= Rs.94,500/-)but the referral court has taken 13 years yielding and applied 13 multiplier and fixed the market value at Rs.12,28,500/-.
33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred several Supreme
Court citations in the above said judgments and fixed the standard multiplier of 10 years yielding taking into consideration of the damage of the other sweet lime trees and fixed the market value at Rs.94500/-on calculation of Rs.94,500/- X 10 =
Rs.9,45,0000/-per acre per year. As such the Hon’ble Supreme
Court fixed the market value applying in the capitalization method on the basis of the opinion of the technical agricultural and commercial experts.
34. In the present case the LAO has not applied any technical agricultural expert opinion the LAO fixed very poor compensation for the fruit bearing 34 mango trees and non fruit bearing 18 mango trees as discussed above without taking any technical opinion of experts, the LAO has fixed very poor compensation.
35. On this aspect an agricultural expert is examined as RW.3.
He clearly deposed that each mango tree will give fruit yielding, 19 from 800 to 1000 mango fruits. The span of life of mango trees is about 35 to 40 years, the rate of each mango fruit is Rs.10/-. The income of each mango tree per year will be Rs.10,000/-in that ratio the annual income of 34 mango trees (34 X 10,000/- =Rs.3,40,000/-) is Rs.3,40,000/-. The remaining non fruit bearing 3 years age 18 mango trees have not taken into consideration in fixation of the market value properly. As such 18 mango trees and 6 teak trees one neredu tree have damaged without fixing the compensation properly in acquisition of the land by the LAO.
36. RW.3 estimated the yielding of the mango trees constantly without deducting the expenditure and without thinking the natural calamities. The circumstances will not consistant continuously in each and every year up to the span of life for the entire orchard of mango garden. Hence the average method of capitalization can be taken into consideration in fixing of the market value of the mango garden and its yielding per tree per year. In the above said circumstances I am inclined to fix the yielding of each mango tree at 400 fruits per tree at the rate of
Rs.3/-per fruit each in average method. In that circumstances a fruit bearing mango tree will give yielding and income per year per tree of Rs.1200/-(400 X 3 =Rs.1200/-).
37. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts have already decided in the above said appeals stating that 10 years yielding is proper in calculation of yielding of mango tree on capitalization method. As such the annual income of 34 mango trees is Rs.40,800/-per year [34 X 1200 = 40800] in capitalization 20 method it will be multiplied by 10; for recovery of the other damages of mango trees and yielding. Therefore instead of 30 years yield, applying the capitalization method 10 years yield is taken into consideration in multiplication of year wise yielding on
Rs.40,800/-; on application of capitalization method by 10 multiplier, the total income for compensation will be Rs.4,08,000/- (Rs.40,800/- X 10 =Rs.4,08,000/-).
38. As such the compensation of malbari crop per acre per year is fixed at Rs.5,60,000/-on capitalization method by 10 multiplier and the market value of 34 fruit bearing mango trees is fixed at Rs.4,08,000/-per tree per year.
39. As discussed above the LAO fixed the market value of the acquired land and also fixed the market value of malbari crop and fruit bearing mango trees in a poor manner, with low estimation which is not proper and just.
40. According to the citation reported in 2004 (10) SC –
Page.627 the market value shall be fixed in a fair manner fairly and properly; the claimants being an agriculturists cannot sustained any loss because the claimants are the agriculturists and their livelihood is agriculture and they have no any source of income for their livelihood except agriculture; taking into consideration of their livelihood of the agriculturists who are the claimants herein, the market value of the acquired lands and damaged the sericulture and mango garden shall be fixed properly and fairly. Accordingly this point is answered.
21
41. POINT.No.2: As discussed in point No.1 elaborately in detail, with relevant citations the market value of the damaged malbari crop in Ac.0-80 cents is fixed at Rs.5,60,000/-on capitalization method and the market value of the damaged 34 mango trees is fixed at Rs.4,08,000/-on capitalization method which is proper and fair; but to avoid the fractions compensation fixed for the malbari crop is minimized to Rs.5,00,000/-and the market value fixed for compensation for 34 mango trees is also minimized to Rs.4,00,000/-. Totally the market value of the malbari crop and 34 mango trees is fixed at Rs.9,00,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- + Rs.4,00,000/-) towards compensation by applying capitalization method. The compensation for the damaged malbari crop and mango garden is enhanced to
Rs.9,00,000/-. Therefore, this point is answered accordingly.
42.POINT NO.3: In the result, the references are settled as follows:
(1) the market value for damages of both sericulture and mango garden is fixed at Rs.9,00,000/-; (2) the solatium at 30% is given over the enhanced market value fixed by the court as provided u/sec.23(2) of the Land Acquisition
Act; (3) the additional market value at 12% per annum is fixed on the market value from the date of sec.4(1) notification till the date of award or from the date of the possession till the date of the award, whichever is earlier; (4) the interest @ 9% per annum shall be calculated from the date of sec.4(1) notification of the act for a period of one year 22 thereafter the rate of interest at 15% p.a. till the date of the payment of enhanced market value; additional market value and solatium; (5) the amount already paid by the Land Acquisition Officer shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation fixed by the court;
and
(6) both the parties directed to bear their own costs.
Dictated to stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me
in the open court, this the 2nd day of May, 2015.
Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Nandyal.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For petitioner For claimants
None RW.1/S.Eswara Reddy
RW.2/D.Anjaneyulu
FAC.Asst.Director, Sericulture
RW.3/K.Mahammad Anif,
Agricultural Officer
For petitioner marked by consent
Ex.A1: Copy of Award No.10/2007 dt.30-7-2007 and proceedings
For claimant:
Ex.B1/CC of common judgement in AS.No.3184/1992 dt.19-11-96 on its batch on the file of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
Ex.B2/FMB sketch of Thimmapuram mandal
Ex.B3/Pattadarpass book issued by MRO in favour of S.Eswara reddy
Ex.B4/ Pattadarpass book issued by MRO in favour of S.Anasuyamma 23
Ex.B5/1B Namuna extract ROR relating to S.Eswar reddy, dt.24-11-2014
Ex.B6/1B Namuna extract ROR relating to S.Anasuyamma, dt.24-11-2014
Ex.B7/Adangal Phani issued by MRO, Mahanandi. dt.24-11-2014
Ex.B8/Zeneology certificate issued by Revenue Officer, Nandyal
Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Nandyal.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: NANDYAL
PRESENT: Sri V. Srinivasulu, B.Com., B.L.,
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.
Saturday the 2nd day of May, 2015
LAOP.496/2008
Special Deputy Collector cum LAO, TGP, Nandyal.
…... Referring Officer - Versus –
S.Eswar Reddy, aged about 60 years, s/o.Chinnapureddy,Hindu, 24 agriculturist, r/o.H.No.28/761/A1, N.G.O’s Colony, Nandyal, Kurnool district . . . . . Claimant/Respondent
This is the petition filed by the Petitioner/Land Acquisition
Officer under section 18 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
The particulars of the reference stated in the petition are to the following effect:-
1. Award No.: 10/2007
2. Date of Award: 30-7-2007
3. Date of Notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act : 28-05-2005
4. Date of Possession : 14-6-2006
5. Purpose of Acquisition : Land acquired for excavation of
Major Distributory in Block No.13
6. Nature of Land: SID
7. Name of village: Gopavaram village, Mahanandi mandal
8. Sy.No. and extent of land acquired from the claimant : Sy.No.214/A2, Ac: 1-62 cents,
9. Market value fixed by the Land
Land Acquisition Officer per acre: Rs.54,000/-
10. Particulars of compensation
Amount received by the claimant:
1. Market value : Rs.87480-00
2. 30% solatium : Rs.53151-00
3. 12% Additional market value : Rs.10958-00
4. 9% Interest : Rs.26355-00
5.15% Interest : Rs.4332-00
6. Trees, Crop value(malbari) : Rs.1,52,206-00
11. Total compensation amount received by the claimant : Rs.3,34,482-00 25
The claimant received the above mentioned compensation amount under protest and requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation. Hence, the reference.
This petition is coming on before me for final order in the presence of Assistant Government Pleader for Referring
Officer/petitioner and Sri.M.Uma Maheswara Reddy and
Sri.G.V.N.Suresh, Advocates for Respondents/claimant, and it is hereby ordered and decreed as follows:
D E C R E E
(1) the market value for damages of both sericulture and mango garden is fixed at Rs.9,00,000/-; (2) the solatium at 30% is given over the enhanced market value fixed by the court as provided u/sec.23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act; (3) the additional market value at 12% per annum is fixed on the market value from the date of sec.4(1) notification till the date of award or from the date of the possession till the date of the award, whichever is earlier; (4) the interest @ 9% per annum shall be calculated from the date of s.4(1) notification of the act for a period of one year thereafter the rate of interest at 15% p.a. till the date of the payment of enhanced market value; additional market value and solatium; (5) the amount already paid by the Land Acquisition Officer shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation fixed by the court;
and
(6) both the parties directed to bear their own costs.
Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 30th day of April, 2015.
Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Nandyal.
Memo of cost
For Petitioner/RO For Respondent/ Claimant.
Rs. Rs. Stamp on VakalathRs.---Rs.2-00 Advocate Fee--- TOTAL2-00 26
Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Nandyal.