LexNELATUR SAMPOORNAMMA W/O SRINIVASULUREDDY versus SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, L.A., TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, PODALAKUR AT NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 517 NELATUR SAMPOORNAMMA W/O SRINIVASULUREDDY A v. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, L.A., TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, PODALAKUR AT NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH &ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 9287 of 2017) JULY 19,2017 [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] B Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 54 - Compensation for fruit C bearing trees - Acquisition of appellant's land with pomegranate tree orchard in 1990 - Reference Court applied the multiplier of '2' and enhanced the market value of each pomegranate to Rs 651- - High Court upheld the market rate, however enhanced the multiplier to '9' - On appeal, held: As per Letter No. F(3) 2164189 dated 26.11.1989 of the Department, the revised value of D pomegranate trees was fixed at Rs. 751- - On the date of acquisition of the said land, the very same Notification was in effect and that being so, both the Reference Court and High Court erred in fixing the rate of the pomegranate trees at Rs. 651- relying on the subsequent G.O.No.601 dated 19.06.1992 which was not in E existence on the date of publication of the Notification - As per the Notification dated 26.11.1989, the fruit bearing period being not less than twelve years and the trees being three years old, the High Court rightly applied the multiplier of '9' - Appellant sought compensation of Rs.3,0001- per pomegranate tree relying on judgment of this Court which cannot be made applicable to the F instant case since the award of compensation in the said case was of 08.03.1999, as opposed to award in the instant case which is of 14. 09.1992 - It is obvious that seven years back a fruit bearing tree would have fetched lesser income than it would fetch now - On facts, appellant awarded compensation of Rs.2,0001- per G pomegranate tree along with all the statutory benefits. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 As per Letter No. F(3) 2164/89 dated 26.11.1989 of the Department of Horticulture, the revised value 517 H 518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R. A of fruit bearing trees viz. pomegranate was fixed at Rs.75/-. On the date of Section 4(1) Notification i.e. 30.03.1990, it is evident that the very same Notification was in effect and that being so, the Reference Court as well as the High Court committed an error in fixing the rate of the pomegranate trees at Rs.65/- B relying on the subsequent G.O.No.601 dated 19.06.1992 which was not in existence on record on the date of publication of Section 4(1) Notification. Insofar as the multiplier applied is concerned, as per the Notification of the year 1989, the fruit bearing period being not less than twelve years and the trees being three years old, the High Court rightly applied the multiplier of "9". [Para C 13] [522-B-D] 1.2 Planting, raising and making commercial use of fruit bearing trees is a painstaking affair and cost of the same is consistently on rise as the years are passing by which is to be kept in view. Award of compensation in relation to fruit bearing 0 trees. depends on facts and circumstances of each case. The appellant has sought compensation of Rs.3000/- per pomegranate tree relying on judgment of this Court dated 29.11.2016 in Civil Appeal Nos.11404-11405 of 2016. However, the compensation of Rs. 3,000/- per pomegranate tree, as has been awarded in the said case, cannot be made applicable to the E instant case, considering the fact that award of compensation in the said case dated 08.03.1999, as opposed to award in the instant case which is dated 14.09.1992. A period of about seven years is a considerable period to be taken note of while computing cost of planting and raising fruit bearing trees. It is obvious that seven F years back a fruit bearing tree would have fetched lesser income than it would fetch now. Accordingly,, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, appellants are awarded compensation of Rs.2,000/- per pomegranate tree alongwith the statutory benefits like solatium and interest on the same. [Paras 14, 15] G H [522-E-F; 523-B-D] Kera/a State Electricity Board v. Livisha and Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 792:(2007) 7 SCR 356 - referred to. Case Law Reference [2007] 7 SCR 356 referred to Para 14 NELATUR SAMPOORNAMMA v. SPECIAL D.C., TELUGU 519 GANGA PROJECT, AP. & ANR. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9287 A of 2017. From the impugned final Judgment and Order dated 12-03-2014 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in LA
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.