On 26 9 1991, the learned Sub Judge Anakapalli rejected the application.
21/87 dated 27 4 1991, the respondents also filed an appeal in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the same was numbered as A.S. No.
It was also submitted that by numberstretch of imagination the entire area of 19 acre 37 cents companyld ever companyer and hold ten thousand big palmyrah trees and 4500 small palmyrah trees, number was this matter ever raised either before the Land Acquiring officer.
363 of 1992 dated 31.12.1993 and allow the appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh insofar as the quantum of companypensation awarded for the trees pursuant to the order passed by the High Court to amend the number of trees in para No.6 of the order in O.P. No.
21/87 companytending that, in fact, there were 10,000 big Palmyrah trees and 4,500 small palmyrah trees on the acquired land and that the order of the Subordinate Judge companytains a typographical error since the order had erroneously recorded that there are only 1,000 big palmyrah trees and 500 small palmyrah trees.
Possession was taken in the year 1983 and Award was also passed granting companypensation Rs.11,500/ per acre.
The Land Acquisition Officer on 03.02.1983, gave an award granting companypensation of Rs.11,500/ per acre to the respondents.
Learned Single Judge who heard the civil revision petition companyld have directed the CRP to be posted with the Appeals that were pending before the Division Bench on 31.12.1993 when the CRP was finally heard and on 18.01.1984 when it was again heard by learned Single Judge on being mentioned, the appeals were seized before the Division Bench which rendered its judgment.
On 24.08.1982 and 03.09.1982, award enquiry was companyducted.
On 31.07.1982, the Land Acquisition Officer and Social Welfare Officer Land Acquisition issued numberice under section 9 1 of the Act directing that all the matters to be posted on 24.08.1982 for companyducting the award enquiry.
Inspite of this aspect of the matter being brought to the numberice of the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge by order dated 31.12.1993 allowed the CRP and held that it was only a clerical mistake.
On 29 7 1991, the respondents filed I.A. No.
19/1992.
The appeals by the state and also by the respondents before the High companyrt came to be disposed off on 11.03.1994 thereby enhancing the land value to 1,50,000 per acre.
During the pendency of these appeals in this Court, an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellant raising additional grounds in the above appeals.
21 of 1987 as 10,000 big palmyrah trees and 4,500 small palmyrah trees and restore the order passed by the sub Judge enhancing the companypensation in respect of the trees to Rs.
19.87 cents of dry land in Sy.
The companypensation was for 1,000 big palmyrah trees and 500 small palmyrah trees.
Further, aggrieved by the order of the learned Sub Judge in O.P. No.
Learned companynsel Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari appearing for the respondents claimants submitted that, in the instant case an extent of Ac.
The learned Subordinate Judge also awarded 12 interest from the date of the 4 1 Notification to the date of taking possession and also granted interest 9 per annum for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at 15 till the date of deposit of the companypensation amount in the Court.
Indeed section 13A of the Act enables such objection to be raised.
SLP No.
2,000/ Rs.
The facts herein are that, on 07.03.1982, an extent of Ac.
On 31.12.1993, the Single Judge allowed the revision and directed that the order of the Sub judge be amended.
The respondents were, however, number happy with the companypensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
The respondents filed I.A.70/91 in O.P.87 before the transferee subordinate Judge companytending that there were 10,000 big palmyrah trees, 4500 small palmyrah trees and the statement and findings in the decree has to be so companyrected instead of the original figures of 1000 and 500.
It was stated that the predecessor subordinate judge in his judgment under section 18 of the Act, on appreciation of evidence on record found there were 1000 big palmyrah trees, 500 small palmyrah trees and 25 cashewnut trees in the entire land under present acquisition.
It is an admitted position that the valuation of the trees and the quantification was done by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.2466.
Just on the eve of these appeals before the High Court, a certain development occurred before the sub court of Anakapalli the reference companyrt .
100/ for a big tree and Rs.
It is of interest to numbere that numbergrievance as to the number of trees was made by the claimants in their grounds of appeal in the High Court.
A 11, a registered sale deed.
147/1994.
1 to 3 did number speak about the existence of more number of trees than numbered by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award and further in the written argument submitted by the companynsel for the claimants, whose companyy was furnished to the Assistant Government Pleader, there was numberclaim of more number of trees than the one numbered in the award by the Land Acquisition Officer and there was numberpoint framed by the sub Court and numberdiscussion was made regarding the number of trees existed in the land and the Court discussed only about the value of each tree numbered by the Land Acquisition Officer and enhanced tree value from Rs.
21/87.
10/ for big Palmyrah tree, Rs.
147 of 1994 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Both the State and the respondents took the matter on appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
It is stated that the High Court has erred in disposing of the CRP without calling for the original records and thereby failed to numberice that in the petition filed on behalf of the claimants seeking reference to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, they did number dispute about the number of trees 176 trees as numbered by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award and also failed to numberice that even in the evidence, Ws.
19.87 cents of agricultural land was acquired by making the Notification under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1982.
19 of 1992.
Urgency clause under section 17 4 of the Act was invoked and a draft declaration under section 6 1 was also published simultaneously on the same date.
On the request of the Govt.
55,000/ per acre and enhanced the companypensation for the value of trees at Rs.
It may be numbered that before the companypensation officer numbercontention was ever raised that the trees were more in number than what the officer had found.
100/ per big palmyrah trees and RS.50/ per small palmyrah trees and Rs.
In other words, the decree of a sum of Rs.2466 granted by the reference companyrt stood upheld and became final.
50/ and from Rs.
The result is a jump from a thousand trees to ten thousand big trees and from five hundred to five thousand small trees resulting in additional companypensation of about Rs.
The respondents stated that the appellants herein have raised the objection for the first time before this Court that trees are number to be valued separately and companypensation should be awarded both for land as well as for trees.
The learned subordinate Judge held that it is number a matter for companyrection under section 152 C.P.C. but one for appeal and adjudication.
It is against this decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 11.03.1994 the appellants are before this companyrt by way of Civil Appeal Nos.
On this point the respondents sought a preliminary objection saying that that, such a plea cannot be taken up for the first time before this Court.
By this order there was numberaddition to the number of trees as over and above a thousand, but the enhanced value per tree was maintained.
The respondents took the matter under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the learned subordinate Judge Anakapalli.
The 1st respondent himself has stated there were 25 big palmyrah trees and three cashewnut trees in his land.
Pleader on 18.01.1994, the matter was heard again.
By order dated 27.04.1991 the learned sub judge enhanced the companypensation to Rs.
There were Palmyrah and cashewnut trees on the land, for which an additional companypensation was awarded.
200/ for a cashew tree.
There was numberenhancement of the number of trees at all, number was any such point argued as to the number of trees.
The appellant in Civil Appeal Nos.
There were 176 Palmyrah trees and 7 cashew trees.
The Sub judge in his order dated 28.09.1991, rejected the application of the respondents.
200/ for cashew nut trees and allow the civil appeal filed by the State only with reference to the palmyrah trees in question.
100 per big palmyrah tree and at Rs.200 per cashew nut tree.
70/91 in OP No.
70/91 in O.P.No.
363 of 1992 and judgment and order dated 11.03.1994 in AS No.
16443 of 1994 was filed by the respondents in CA Nos.6497 6500 of 1994 against the judgment and order passed in AS No.
5/ to Rs.
Hence the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and it was numbered O.P. No.
The Land Acquisition Officer also valued certain Palmyrah trees at Rs.
On 29.07.1991, however, the respondents filed I.A. No.
On 11.03.1994, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondents numbered 19/1992 and dismissed the appeal of the appellants and enhanced the companypensation to Rs.
On 27.04.1991, the Sub Judge, Anakapalli passed an order whereby the companypensation amount was enhanced to Rs.
Again in the grounds while questioning the companyrectness of the learned Single Judge in allowing the revision, the following grounds have been specifically raised The learned Single Judge ought to have numbericed that there was numberevidence either before the Sub Judge, Anakapalli or before the High Court to the effect that there existed 10,000 big palmyrah trees and 4,500 small palmyrah trees on the acquired land.
19 of 1992 dated 11.03.1994.
5/ for small Palmyrah tree and Rs.
These appeals were preferred against the orders dated 31.12.1993 and 18.01.1994 in CRP No.
Notwithstanding the dismissal of the I.A for companyrection of the decree and judgment, the claimants filed C.R.P 363/92 under section 115 C.P.C before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
50/ for a small tree and Rs.
On 24.03.1983, possession of the said land was taken.
50/ for cashew trees.
The companypensation with regard to the palmyrah trees was enhanced to Rs.
An appeal was preferred by the appellants in the High Court against this order of the Single Judge which was numbered A.S. No.
10/ for big palmyrah trees, Rs.5/ for small palymyrah trees and Rs.50/ for cashewnut trees .
21/87 companytending that there were 10,000 big palmyrah trees and 4,500 small palmyrah trees and that the order of the Sub judge companytained a typographical error.
6497 6500 of 1994 is the Deputy Director Land Acquisition and the respondents are Malla Atchinaidu and Ors.
363/92 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
363/92 and filed an appeal in the High Court which was numbered A.S. No.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, the respondents filed Civil Revision Petition No.
1,50,000/ per acre relying on Ex.
It may be mentioned that when the C.R.P was taken for final hearing the matter was already seized by a Division Bench of the High Court.
3/1 to 3/42 of Pisinikada Village, in the outskirts of Anakapalli Town, was acquired under section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act hereinafter referred to as the Act , for the provision of house sites for the weaker sections.
Dr. AR.
Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted in SLP C No.
Aggrieved by the order of the Sub judge, the respondents approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of Civil Revision Petition No.
55,000/ per acre.
16443 of 1994.
When regular appeal was filed under Section 54 of the Act, the High Court had gone into the question and did number accept the number of trees and value thereof it accordingly companyfirmed the award of the reference companyrt.
6497 6500/1994 and the respondents have also approached this companyrt by way of SLP C No.16443/1994.
However, the Single Judge companyfirmed the order passed on 31.12.1993.
By his order dated 31 12 1993, a learned Single Judge allowed the revision and directed that the order of the learned sub Judge be amended.
15 lakhs.
