Allowed

Avirneni Rama Krishna, v. The Government of Andhra PraDESH

Telangana HC4 Dec 2009WP/15830/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging the re-assessment of Subabul trees for land acquisition compensation. Despite section 23 arguments regarding possession timing, the court found the initial assessment just and proper, allowing the petition to reject the demand for a new reassessment report.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed to the extent that the original assessment report regarding the valuation of Subabul trees is to be adopted without further reassessment.

Avirneni Rama Krishna, Vs The Government of Andhra PraDESH — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

¶2

W.P.No.15830 of 2009

¶3

Date: 4 th December, 2009

¶4

Between :-

¶5

Avirneni Rama Krishna and others .. Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Special Collector (LA) Indira Sagar Project, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District And others .. Respondents

¶8

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

¶9

W.P.No.15830 of 2009

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

1. This Court issued rule nisi on 11-8-2009 and directed status quo to be maintained for a limited period which is being extended from time to time.

¶12

2. W.V.M.P.No.4025/2009 is filed to vacate the interim order. At the stage of hearing of the vacate application, the Counsel on record Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests made a request for final disposal of the Writ Petition and hence the Writ Petition itself is being disposed of finally by this Court.

¶13

3. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1szt respondent in seeking re-assessment report vide Ref.B1/545/08 dated 16-6-2009 with vested interest and grudge from the 5^th respondent in a particular fashion against the valuation report of Subabul trees given by the 4^th respondent vide Ref.No.3510/2005-V4 dated 11-11-2008 and 27-2-2009 according to the measurements and age mentioned in panchanama dated 18-6-2008 on the joint inspection conducted by both the Revenue and Forest officials with a view to cause loss to the land losers in payment of compensation by

¶14

passing award under the proposed acquisition for excavation of Right Main Canal under the Indira Sagar Project without considering the objections filed by the petitioners at every stage as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, vested interest and against the true letter and spirit of the Land Acquisition Act and consequently to direct the respondents to stay all further proceedings including passing of the award and taking possession of the petitioners’ lands situated in Sy.No.80/1 and 366/2B of Velagaleru village of G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District to an extent of Acs.11-11 cents and to pass such other suitable orders.

¶15

4. The respondents 1 to 3 filed counter affidavit along with W.V.M.P.No.4025/2009. The 4^th respondent also filed counter affidavit.

¶16

5. Sri Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, in spite of clear assessment available, seeking re-assessment in this regard cannot be sustained.

¶17

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests had taken this Court through the respective counter affidavits and would maintain that only for respondent proper clarification, reassessment report had been called for and on that ground, the reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition cannot be granted.

¶18

7. Heard the Counsel.

¶19

8. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the 1^st respondent, from the day of beginning of the acquisition proceedings of the petitioners’ land for the purpose of Indira Sagar (Polavaram project) is acting detrimental to the interests of the petitioner and the petitioners had been compelled to approach this Court at every stage to seek appropriate directions from this Court. It is further stated that the 1^st petitioner is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the land

¶20

admeasuring Ac.3-03 cents in Sy.No.80/1, the 2^nd petitioner is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the land admeasuring Ac.302 cents in Sy.No.80/1, the 3^rd petitioner is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the land admeasuring Ac.3-06 cents in Sy.No.366/2 and the 4^th petitioner is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the land admeasuring Ac.2-00 cents in Sy.No.366/2 of Velagaleru village, G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District having purchased under valid registered sale deeds long back and they had obtained patta pass books respectively from the concerned revenue officials and the petitioners had been paying cist and are in possession of the property.

¶21

9. It is further stated that under the impugned notification published in Vartha Telugu Daily, Vijayawada, Krishna District dated 23-2-2008 the 1^st respondent issued Form 2A notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter in short referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience) for the purpose of VII Package from 170.535 K.M. to 174.760 K.M. in Velagalaru village for the purpose of Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project Right Main Canal and accordingly notification was issued and enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act had been contemplated. Further it is stated that the 2^nd respondent issued notice in R.C.C.33/08 dated 20-5-2008 calling the petitioners to attend on 30-5-2008 for enquiry and or objections and on that day the officials of the 2^nd respondent had taken signatures from the petitioners on empty bond papers which the petitioners came to know that the had obtained their signatures for package consent award and immediately the petitioners sent representations dated 19-6-2008 and 20-6-2008 by registered post with acknowledgement due withdrawing their signatures to the package consent award as the petitioners had been demanding to conduct panchanama. 10. Further it is stated that the petitioners are the affected parties under the proposed acquisition but however they made it clear

¶22

that they are not opposing the acquisition of lands. Since there was no mention of the number of trees in existence and their particulars and the notification dated 23-2-2008 speaks only of trees Mango, Neem and Tamarind, the petitioners submitted objections in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act to conduct panchanama and note down the varieties of trees, number of trees and their measurements to seek just compensation and as the respondents did not consider, the petitioners 3 and 4 filed W.P.No.4765/2008 and the petitioners 1 and 2 filed W.P.No.13232/2008 before this Court and as per the directions of this Court dated 7-3-2008 and 25-6-2008 in the said Writ Petitions panchanama had been conducted on 18-6-2008 and 23-10-2008 in Sy.No.366/2B and 80/1 of Velagaleru village, G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District respectively wherein no proposed loss or damage had been mentioned except the measurements and age of the trees. Further it is stated that after conducting the panchanama the petitioners had sent their objections/representation dated 1-11-2008 to the 2^nd respondent by registered post requesting copies of the panchanamas dated 18-6-2008 and 23-10-2008 to the Forest Department to get the assessment of life time maturity value of the Subabul trees under capitalisation method according to the measurements and the age mentioned in the panchanama to take the same value into consideration to pay just compensation while passing the award. It is further stated that after receipt of the representation dated 1-11-2008, the 1^st respondent did not act upon and without giving any reply to the representation dated 1-11-2008 highhandedly contemplated to pass the award by ignoring the said representation. When the petitioner approached the 1^st respondent’s office the officials informed the petitioner orally that they are going to take the Forest Offence Rates for the year 2003 into consideration which is irrelevant as Section 23 of the Act clearly says that while paying the compensation, loss or damage at the time of Collector’s taking possession shall be taken into consideration. Since the notification of

¶23

acquisition was in the year 2008 and so far the respondents had not taken possession of the land, taking forest offence rates for the year 2003 is contrary to the Act and as such the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.No.27509/2008 by the petitioners 1 and 2 and W.P.No.27519/2008 by petitioners 3 and 4 and this Court was pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioners objections/representation dated 1-11-2008 during the course of award enquiry and dispose of the same in accordance with law before passing the award dated 18-12-2008. 11. It is also further stated that as per the directions of this Court in W.P.No.27509/2008 and W.P.No.27519/2008 dated 18-122008, the 2^nd respondent made a request to the 4^th respondent on 252-2009 and accordingly the 3^rd respondent had submitted the values of the trees in Ref.No.3510/2005-V4 dated 27-2-2009 according to the measurements and age mentioned in panchanama dated 18-6-2008 and 23-10-2008 which was jointly conducted by both the 4^th respondent officials and the officials of the respondents 2 and 3. Though the estimated values of the trees were received by the 2^nd respondent from the 4^th respondent long back and when the 2^nd respondent had been wantonly causing delay without passing the award and paying compensation the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.No.12173/2009 and 12175/2009 seeking a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to forthwith pass award and pay compensation without further delay as the values were already submitted by the 4^th respondent on 11-11-2008 and 27-2-2009 wherein the 2^nd respondent categorically stated that already an award had been passed indicating that compensation would be paid to the petitioners soon after the receipt of approval from the 1^st respondent and accordingly this Court was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petitions on 23-6-2009 at the stage of admission itself with a direction that “the

¶24

1^st respondent-Government is directed to pay compensation to the petitioners as proposed by the Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Indra Sagar (Polavaram) Project, Rajahmundry within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order” and the same was communicated to the respondents through registered post acknowledgement due.

¶25

12. It is also further stated that since the beginning of the land acquisition proceedings the respondents are trying to deceive the petitioners with a view to pass consent award by hook or crook and as the petitioners brought the illegal action of the 2^nd respondent officials obtaining blank signatures of the petitioners under the impression of procedures to use the same for consent award to the notice of this Court, they bore grudge to see that the petitioners should be deprived of just compensation and the 1^st respondent vide proceedings Ref.B1/545/08 dated 16-6-2009 directed the 5^th respondent to send reassessment report in the particular fashion he wants which was suppressed and not brought to the notice of this Court while passing the orders in W.P.No.12173/2009 and W.P.No.12175/2009 on 23-62009 and made believe this Court that the award was already passed. Admittedly as on date no award had been passed and now under the guise of implementation of the aforesaid orders making hectic efforts to get the reassessment report as intended by him from the 5^th respondent and the next moment of receipt of the said report, they planned to pass the award basing on the said report and take possession of the land to deceive and deprive the petitioners. Once the award is passed, the only remedy left to the petitioners is to approach the District court. The respondents, taking it to their personal ego, are making hectic efforts detrimental to the interest of the petitioners who are loosing their valuable lands and value fetching trees (total extent of land is Ac.11.11 cents and 40,700 trees worth approximately Rs.40 lakhs as per the report submitted by the 4^th

¶26

respondent under Forest Offence Rates though fetches more in private market) against their will, contrary to the true letter and spirit of Land Acquisition Act and if the same were not stayed the petitioners will be put under irreparable loss and hardship. In such circumstances, the present Writ Petition is filed praying for the aforesaid reliefs. 13. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 it is stated that in the instant case, the land acquisition proposals were initiated soon after receipt of land acquisition proposals from the Requisitioning Department i.e., Executive Engineer, Indra Sagar (Polavaram) Project, Right Main Canal, Vijayawada for an extent of Acs.225.67 cents in Velagaleru village of G.Konduru Mandal for excavation of the Right Main Canal under Package VII at Chainage from KM 170.535 to 174.760. As per the land plan schedules and requisition filed by the Executive Engineer, Indra Sagar Right Main Canal Division, Vijayawada the following category of lands had fallen under alignment of acquisition: patta lands Ac.152-37 and Government lands Ac.73.30 – total Ac.225.67. Accordingly the draft notification proposals under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act had been submitted to the Collector, Krishna for an extent of Ac.85.70 cents for necessary approval and the same was approved by the Collector, Krishna vide Rc.G2/850/08 dated 22-2-2008. The approved copy was also published in the newspapers i.e., in Eenadu on 23-2-2008, Vaartha on 23-2-2008 as well as in the locality on 23-2-2008. A team of officials consisting of Horticulture, Forest Department, R&B Department along with Revenue officials had conducted joint inspection on the proposed acquisition of lands on 3-3-2008 so as to assess the values of the land, trees/structures existed in the proposed lands and to take further action under Land Acquisition Act. After completion of the joint inspection and enjoyment survey work, a notice was issued to all the land losers to attend enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act on 28-3-2008 at 11 A.M. at Gram Panchayat office, Velagaleru through Rc.C.33/08 dated 25-2-2008 before the Land Acquisition

¶27

Officer. After completion of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project, Right Main Canal, Unit III, Vijayawada, submitted the report of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act to the Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project, Rajahmundry vide letter No.ISP/268/2008 dated 18-6-2008 for an extent of Acs.75.65 cents and it was also got published in the news papers i.e., Vaartha on 7-7-2008, Eenadu on 7-7-2008 and as well as in the locality on 7-7-2008. Subsequently notice under Section 9(1) and 9(3) were issued to all the land losers with a request to attend the award enquiry on 18-7-2008 at Velagaleru village. Hw, the petitioners did not turn up to the award enquiry on 18-7-2008. The petitioners had also not attended the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act on 28-3-2008 and they approached this Court and filed W.P.No.4765/2008 on 7-3-2008. At the admission stage this Court passed the following orders :

¶28

“Before passing of the award, the Land Acquisition Officer will normally get the pre-valuation report to know the value of the lands etc., and hence the length and measurement of the existence of trees also must have been taken note of. However, as the petitioners’ grievance is that there was no panchanama and if really there is no panchanama the respondents shall conduct a panchanama to know the exact length and measurement of the trees in existence so that the petitioners can ask for payment of appropriate compensation”.

¶29

As per the directions of this Court the Land Acquisition Officer had conducted panchanama on 18-6-2008 in the presence of field staff, Forest Department officials, the writ petitioners as well as other local ryoths and noted down the details of existing trees as well as other things on ground. The petitioners had expressed satisfaction and also signed on the panchanama on 18-6-2008. Subsequently, the petitioners in W.P.No.4765/2008 dated 7-3-2008 had also filed a representation before the Land Acquisition Officer on 19-6-2008 with a request to grant some more time to file the objections on the enquiry

¶30

notice under Section 5-A of the Act and on 20-6-2008 Avirneni Ramakrishna and Koteswara Rao had filed representation before the Land Acquisition Officer on the same lines.

¶31

14. Further it is stated that Avirneni Rama Krishna and Avirneni Srinivas sons of Ramakoteswara Rao, residents of Velagaleru village had also filed W.P.no.13232/2008 before this Court seeking a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to conduct panchanama as to the number of trees existed on ground including their measurement admeasuring Ac.3.03 in R.S.No.80/1 and Ac.3-02 cents in R.S.No.80/1 of Velagaleru village, G.Konduru Mandal before taking possession of the petitioners schedule land in pursuance of Section 4(1) notification dated 23-2-2008 in the interest of justice and this Court had passed orders accordingly for conduct of panchanama in W.P.No.4765/2008. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer had conducted panchanama on 23-10-2008 along with the Revenue officials, Forest officials in the presence of the petitioners and the mediators. On that day, both the petitioners had attended and participated in the panchanama process. They had also signed on the panchanama statement according to the directions of this Court. After completion of panchanama procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer requested the Divisional Forest Officer, Vijayawada to assess the values of the trees and submit the same for taking further necessary action in the matter. Pending receipt of reports from the other Departments the present petitioners again filed a representation before the Special Deputy Collector (LA) on 1-11-2008 through registered post with acknowledgement due with a request that the representation by objection in continuation to the earlier letter dated 19-6-2008 which was acknowledged by Land Acquisition Officer requested to send a copy of panchanama to the Forest Department to get the assessment of life time maturity value of the Subabul trees on the capitalisation method according to the measurements and age mentioned in the panchanama to take the same value into consideration to pay just

¶32

compensation while passing the award. Accordingly, the Divisional Forest Officer, Vijayawada assessed the values and submitted his report vide reference No.3510/2005-V4 dated 6-11-2008 as he is the competent authority to assess the values of Subabul. In the meanwhile the petitioners again approached this Court and filed W.P.No.27519/2008 dated 18-12-2008 and 27509/2008 dated 1812-2008 against Special Deputy Collector (LA) and District Collector, Krishna. At the admission stage, this Court passed the following order :

¶33

“In case the award enquiry not yet been held, there can be no objection to the petitioner objection/representation dated 1-112008 being considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. There shall be a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioners objections/representations dated 1-11-2008 during the course of award enquiry and dispose of the same in accordance with law before passing the award. It is made clear that consideration of the petitioners’ representation, as aforementioned, need be undertaken only if the award enquiry has not yet been held and the award has not yet been passed”.

¶34

In pursuance of the orders of this Court, the petitioners appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and gave award enquiry statement on 10-11-2008 without giving consent and hence a separate award for an extent of Ac.11-11 cents was prepared (General Award) and submitted to the Special Collector (LA), Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project, Rajahmundry along with other Departmental values as discussed above for approval by the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project, Right Main Canal, Unit-III, Vijayawada. The Special Collector (LA), Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project, Rajahmundry had inspected the proposed award extent of land on 9-6-2009 and observed that the values assessed in respect of Subabul trees in the land proposed for acquisition seems to be very high when compared to the assessment reports of the Forest official of East Godavari District in similar Land Acquisition cases in which they assessed the value of Subabul on tonnage basis. In view of the

¶35

above, the Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project, Rajahmundry requested the Divisional Forest Officer, Vijayawada vide letter No.B1/547/2008 dated 16-6-2009 to reexamine the proposal and to issue suitable instructions to the concerned for reassessment of Subabul trees scientifically and to furnish the reassessment reports at an early date so as to finalise the Land Acquisition proceedings and to pay the compensation to the land losers. Pending receipt of the report from the Forest Department the petitioners again approached this Court and filed W.P.Nos.12173/2009 and 12175/2009 with a request to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Prlject, Right Main Canal, Unit-III, Vijayawada in not passing the award for payment of compensation even after joint inspection conducted and estimation of values were given by the Divisional Forest Officer, Vijayawada vide Rc.3510/05-V4 dated 11-11-2008. This Court disposed of the same with a direction that the 1^st respondent i.e., the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) is directed to pay compensation to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Pending finalisation of the above matter, the petitioners again approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

¶36

15. In reply to paras 1 and 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that it is a fact that the Government in their G.O.Ms.No.1843 Revenue (L.C.) Department, dated 13-12-1984 had empowered the Special Collectors to approve the Draft Award as and when submitted by the Land Acquisition Officers/Special Deputy Collectors. In the instant case, the 2^nd respondent had prepared Draft Award (General) for an extent of Ac.11-11 cents which relates to the petitioners herein along with the reports submitted by the Forest Department, R&B Department with Horticulture in accordance with the trees estimated in the panchanama dated 18-6-2008. Accordingly the

¶37

1^st respondent-Special Collector (L.A.), Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project, Rajahmundry had conducted personal inspection of the proposed extent of Award on 9-6-2009 and observed that the values assessed in respect of Subabul Trees (40,700) in the land proposed for acquisition seems to be very high when compared to the assessment reports of the Forest Officers of the East Godavari District in similar land acquisition case in which they assessed the value of Subabul on tonnage basis. For the reasons the Special Collector (L.A.) requested the Forest officials to examine the proposal and issue suitable instructions to the concerned for re-assessment of Subabul trees scientifically and furnish the assessment reports at an early date to finalise the Land Acquisition for payment of compensation to the land losers. In view of the above, it is not correct to say that the Special Collector (L.A.) had acted with vested interest and grudge against the petitioners. However, the land will not be taken possession forcibly from the land losers as apprehended by the petitioners and it will be taken possession only after passing the award and observing all formalities under the Act. Being an approving authority, the Special Collector (L.A.) had requested the Forest officials to re-examine the matter as the values adopted are very high side and which involves Government money.

¶38

16. In reply to para-3 of the affidavit, it is stated that it is a fact that the 1^st respondent is not acting against the interest of the petitioners. The 2^nd respondent initiated Land Acquisition proposals according to the Land Plan schedules furnished by the requisitioning Department. Accordingly draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published to acquire the land under the provisions of the Act of an extent of Acs.225.67 cents in Velagaleru village of G.Konduru Mandal for excavation of Right Main Canal under Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project vide package VII at chainage from 170.535 to 174.760. The above draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published without invoking urgency clause under Section 17(1) of

¶39

the Act by the Collector, Krishna. A notice was also issued to the land losers including the petitioners to attend the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act on 28-3-2008 at Gram Panchayat Office, Velagaleru before Land Acquisition Officer vide Rc.C.33/2008 dated 25-2-2008. However, the petitioners did not attend the enquiry and approached this Court and filed W.P.No.4765/2008 and orders were obtained to conduct panchanama to know the exact length and measurements of trees that existed in the proposed extent. It is further stated that according the land acquisition procedure after completion of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer shall constitute a team of officials with Revenue, Forest, R&B, Horticulture and Agriculture officials to assess the values of land, trees, structures, buildings and crops existed on ground. However, before completion of the due procedure under the Act i.e., at the stage of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioners approached this Court and sidelined the land acquisition process and as such it is not correct to say that the respondents are acting detrimental to the interest of the petitioners. As explained above, the respondents are only acting within the permissible limits duly observing all the formalities and due processes as envisaged under the Act.

¶40

17. Further, in reply to para-4 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition it is stated that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated to acquire the land to meet the requirement of the requisitioning Department and accordingly notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued as per the provisions of the Act. Further in reply to para-5 it is stated that it is not correct to say that the 2^nd respondent had taken signatures from the petitioners on empty bond paper to utilise the same for passing the consent award. The petitioners are aware that it is only a general award and therefore the allegations levelled by the petitioners bears no truth. The petitioners only signed on the notices of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act but not on the consent form i.e., Form IV (as prescribed under

¶41

G.O.Ms.No.1050) and hence the question of passing of consent award does not arise.

¶42

18. In reply to paras 6 and 7 of the affidavit it is stated that it is a fact that under the provisions of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer has to publish notice under Section 4(1) of the Act intimating that the lands notified in the draft notification will be required for public purpose. However, the said draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act does not reflect the true area of land as well as the exact details that existed on ground such as trees, buildings and structures etc., as it is only a formal intimation to the land losers. After conducting the joint inspection, survey measurement work by the concerned officials the true extent of the land and things on ground will be finalised and the same will be published in draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Hence the contention of the petitioner to publish the exact number of trees in the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is not correct. It is also further stated that the petitioners themselves wantonly approached this Court and had taken direction from this Court to conduct panchanama for assessing the values of the trees existing on the ground. However the 2n respondent had followed the directions of this Court with due respect and accordingly conducted panchanama on 18-6-2008 in the presence of the writ petitioners. 19. In reply to paras 8 and 9 it is stated that it is not correct to say that the 2^nd respondent did not take into consideration the representation filed by the petitioners on 1-11-2008 and submitted the draft award to the 1^st respondent. The 2^nd respondent submitted draft award to the 1^st respondent only after including the assessment values estimated by the Forest Department and submitted for its approval. The Forest Department is the competent authority to assess the values as per the norms prescribed by the Government from time to time. The request of the petitioners to consider their request made on the representation dated 1-11-2008 was duly

¶43

considered and sent to the Divisional Forest Officer, Vijayawada to assess the values. The Divisional Forest Officer, Vijayawada had also submitted assessment report vide Rc.B.3510/05-V4 dated 11-112008. It is further stated that the petitioners did not attend the award enquiry on 18-11-2008 at Gram Panchayat office, Velagaleru vide notice issued under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act dated 20-6-2008. The petitioners did not choose to attend the award enquiry on the said date and approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.27509/2008 and 27519/2008 dated 18-12-2008 and obtained the following orders at the admission stage:

¶44

“In case the award enquiry has not yet been held, there can be no objection to the petitioners the objections/representation dated 1-11-2008 being considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. There shall be a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioners objections/representation dated 1-112008 during the course of award enquiry and dispose of the same in accordance with law before passing the award. It is made clear that consideration of the petitioners’ representation, as aforementioned, need be undertaken only if the award enquiry has not yet been held and the award has not yet been passed”.

¶45

In pursuance of the orders of this Court the petitioners had attended at the Land Acquisition Officer’s office and gave award enquiry statements stating that payment of compensation for the number of trees and age mentioned in the panchanama dated 23-10-2008 by obtaining values from the Forest Department by applying the capitalisation method. But they had not given any consent under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.1050 dated 26-10-1992. Due to such reasons the petitioners land measuring Ac.11-11 cents had been excluded from the consent award passed vide consent Award No.8/2008-09 dated 6-1-2009 with a view to pass a separate award after completing all formalities under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Further it is stated that it is not correct to say that the 2^nd respondent had been wantonly causing delay without passing the

¶46

award and in paying the compensation. It is a fact that the draft award had already been submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Special Collector (Land Acquisition) for necessary approval. The same facts had been also intimated to this Court through the Government Pleader vide reference No.33/08 dated 22-6-2008. This Court while disposing of W.P.Nos.12173/2008 and 12175/2008 had observed that “it is clear that already an award was passed indicating that compensation would be paid to the petitioners soon after the receipt of approval from the Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project, Rajahmundry”. In this context it is pertinent to mention that the Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project, Rajahmundry is the competent authority to approve the draft awards submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1843 Revennue (K) Department dated 13-12-1984. The draft award could not be approved for the reason that the values referred by the Forest Department were on very high side which required reverification.

¶47

20. In reply to para-10 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that it is a fact that the allegations levelled by the petitioners are not true and correct. The petitioners made baseless allegations against the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer is only following the due procedure under the provisions of the Act and the petitioners were not pressurised to give their consent at any stage of the Land Acquisition proceedings as it is not a consent award as alleged by the petitioners.

¶48

21. In reply to paras 11 and 12 of the affidavit it is stated that it is a fact that the draft general award for an extent of Ac.11.11 cents which relates to the petitioners had been prepared with the assessed values of the 4^th respondent vide reference 3510/05-V4 dated 11-112008 and submitted to the Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project, Rajahmundry for necessary approval. The further report called for by the Special Collector (Land Acquisition)

¶49

from the Divisional Forest Officer, Vijayawada on the reassessment of the values on par with the values submitted by the Forest officials of East Godavari District had also been submitted by the 4^th respondent on 6-8-2009. It is further stated that being the approving authority, it is the responsibility of the Special Collector (Land Acquisition) to scrutinise the values adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer/other Departments in the award and also competent to ask the other Department officials to re-examine the values if these values seem to be very high as huge Government money is involved. Further it is stated that there is no intention in not approving the award sent by the Land Acquisition Officer and the award could not be passed for the reason that the values adopted by the Forest Department in respect of Subabul trees are on very high side when compared to the similar assessment report sent by the Forest Department in East Godavari District in which the assessment of Subabul were prepared on tonnage basis. It is stated that generally the assessment of trees like Subabul are being prepared in the method in which they were disposed and generally these trees were disposed in tonnage basis. Further it is stated that the Divisional Forest Officer, Vijayawada vide reference dated 19-6-2009 had informed that the earlier values were calculated as per the provisions of Forest Offence Act and if it is to be assessed on tonnage basis the value will be generally far less. The Divisional Forest Officer had sent the reassessment report also vide report dated 6-8-2009 and the following is the comparative statement of the two

¶50

assessment reports:

¶51

Sl.No.	Survey	Value	Value		Difference
	No.	assessed by	assessed	by
		the D.F.O. previously (27-2-2009)	the D.F.O. (6-8-2009)
1	80/1	23,00,200/-	19,92,536/-		3,07,664/-
2	366/2B	16,89,000/-	14,55,218/-		2,33,782/-

¶52

It is further stated that aggrieved by the proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 27-2-2009 the petitioners filed the present Writ

¶53

Petition and obtained status quo orders in W.P.M.P.No.20763/2009 dated 11-8-2009 and because of the said interim order the respondentauthorities are not in a position to pass award in the present case. Except passing the award, the entire land acquisition proceedings had been completed and unless the interim orders are vacated the award could not be passed.

¶54

22. In the counter affidavit filed by 4^th respondent almost similar averments had been made. Further it is stated that the Special Deputy Collector, Indira Sagar Project, RMC, Vijayawada vide his Ref.No.C.221/07 dated 25-2-2008 and Ref.No.C.33/08 dated 25-22008 had informed that joint inspection was proposed to be conducted on 1-3-2008 in respect of the land under acquisition for excavation of Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project, Right Main Canal, (Chainage from K.M. 170.535 to 174.760) in Velagaleru village of G.Kopnduru Mandal and requested the 4^th respondent to depute concerned responsible officers on the date to conduct joint inspection for estimation of crop, trees etc. ,which are in the alignment. Accordingly, instructions were issued to the Forest Range Officer, Vijayawada to attend the joint inspection for enumeration of the trees existing in the chainage from 170.535 K.M. to 174.760 K.M. The petitioners lands in Sy.No.80/1 and 366/2B also fails within the above chainage and enumeration was conducted by the Revenue and Forest Department personnel and prepared the enumeration lists of the trees existing in Sy.No.80/1 and 366/2B of Velagaleru village of G.Konduru Mandal i.e., the petitioners lands. As per the enumeration lists there are no other major species except Subabul trees which are categorised as Poles, Vasams and Bajus. The following are the details of the trees existing in Sy.No.80/1 and 366/B of Velagaleru village of G.Konduru Mandal and value estimated as per the Forest Schedule of Rates for the year 2008-09:

¶55

Category	No.	Rates as	Value
	trees	per FSR of	assessed
		2008-09
Sy.No.366/2B

¶56

1	Poles below 20 cms. Girth class	1000	Rs.15/- each	Rs.15,000/-
2	Poles 20 cm.-30 cm. girth class	6000	Rs.25/- each	Rs.1,50,000/-
3	Vasams 31-35 cms. Girth class	8700	Rs.70/- each	Rs.6,09,000/-
4	Bejus – 46-60 cms. Girth class	5000	Rs.183/- each	Rs.9,15,000/-
	Total Sy.No.80/1	20,700		Rs.16,89,000/-
1	Poles below 20 cms.girth class (Subabul)	900	Rs.15/- each	Rs.13,500/-
2	Poles 21 cm. – 30 cm. girth class	2500	Rs.25/- each	Rs.62,500/-
3	Vasams – 31-45 cms. Girth class	7200	Rs.70/- each	Rs.5,04,000/-
4	Bajus – 46-60 cms. Girth class	9400	Rs.183/- each	Rs.17,20,200/-
5	Palmyrah	1	Rs.338/- each	Rs.338/-
6	Misc. Baju	1	Rs.173/- each	Rs.173/-
7	Misc. Vasam	3	Rs.85/- each	Rs.225/-
	Total:	20005		Rs.23,00,966/-

¶57

Further it is stated that not only the above two survey numbers of the petitioners, but all the trees had been enumerated in all the survey numbers falling within the excavated zone of Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project of Krishna District by the Forest and Revenue Departments combinedly. Valuation of such trees falling within the project area were calculated basing on their classification i.e., Pole, Vasam, Baju or Timber as per Forest Schedule of Rates of the particular year. The enumeration was conducted in Sy.Nos.366/2B and 80/1 during 200809 and values were assessed as per the Forest Schedule of Rates of 2008-09 of the trees enumerated in the said survey numbers and values calculated and the enumeration lists were sent to the 2^nd respondent vide Ref.Nos.3510/2005-V4 dated 11-11-2008 and 27-22009.

¶58

23. It is further stated that the contention of the petitioner to get

¶59

the assessment of lifetime maturity value of Subabul trees according to the measurements and the age mentioned in the panchanama and to take the same compensation while passing the award cannot be admitted as it is not possible to pay the lifetime values of trees, land or any other structure existing in the alienated land and compensations are paid to the owners of the alienated lands basing on the present market values or the present rates prescribed by the Government. 24. In reply to para-10 of the affidavit it is stated that the 1^st respondent vide Ref.No.B1/545/08 dated 16-6-2009 informed the 4^th respondent that as per his observation the values assessed in respect of Subabul trees (total trees 40,700/-) in the land proposed for acquisition in Sy.No.80/1 and 366/2B of Velagaleru village seems to be very high when compared with the assessment reports of the East Godavari District in which they assessed the value of Subabul on “tonnage” basis and requested to reassess the values of Subabul trees on tonnage basis. Accordingly as per the request of the 1^st respondent, reassessment of values of Subabul on tonnage basis was arrived basing on the guidelines communicated by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, A.P., Hyderabad vide Ref.No.47213/2007/PMU-III/2 dated 12-12-2008 wherein methodology for extraction of plantations in the forest areas were prepared and communicated. Further it is stated that in the meantime the orders of this Court in W.P.Nos.12173 and 12175 of 2009 filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 against the inaction of the 1^st respondent in not passing the award for payment of compensation even after receipt of the values assessed by the 4^th respondent, were received on 21-7-2009. While disposing of the said Writ Petitions, this Court passed orders that “The 1^st respondent-Government is directed to pay compensation to the petitioners as proposed by the Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project, Rajahmundry within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”. While

¶60

quoting the said directions of this Court, the 1^st respondent vide Lr.No.B1/545/08 dated 27-7-2009 requested the 4^th respondent to furnish reassessment values of Subabul trees on tonnage basis urgently to approve the same and to pay the compensation to the petitioners as directed by this Court. Accordingly as requested by the Special Collector (L.A.), Rajahmundry i.e., the 1^st respondent, the reassessment of Poles, Vasams and Bajus of Subabul trees as “tonnage” and reassessing the values of the produce on tonnage basis as per the Forest Schedule of rates for 2009-10 i.e., present year had

¶61

been arrived and the same is as hereunder:

¶62

S.No.	Species	No. of trees	Volume in tonnes	Value per ton/tree	Total value In Rs.
	Sy.No.80/1
1		Subabul	20,000	1394.357	1429/- per ton
2	Palmyrah	1	--	Rs.338/- each	338/-
3	Neem	3 Vasam	--	Rs.85/- each	225/-
		1 Baju	--	Rs.173/- each	173/-
				Total:	19,93,272/-
	Sy.No.366/2B
1	Subabul	20,700	1018.347	1429/- per ton	14,55,218

¶63

The aforesaid reassessed values were again informed to the 1^st respondent vide Ref.No.3510/2005-V4 dated 6-8-2009 with a note that the two values were attributed to the calculations based on timber and fuel wood/pulpwood as the Subabul species can be used for both the purpose (timber and pulpwood) and requested to take appropriate action at their end as per the orders of this Court in W.P.Nos.2173 and 12175 of 2009 filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 herein.

¶64

25. These are the respective stands taken by the parties. 26. The main grievance of the writ petitioners is that though the value of the Subabul trees had been valued properly, again calling for

¶65

reassessment report for certain extraneous reasons cannot be sustained. This Court had carefully gone through the material placed before this Court and in the light of the facts and circumstances this Court is satisfied that the original assessment report made in this regard relating to the valuation of the Subabul trees being just and proper, there is no need to further call for any reassessment report. However, when the competent authority is satisfied that it may be just and proper to call for reassessment report, the same cannot be found fault. This Court is not inclined to express any further opinion relating to this aspect, but however in the light of the material placed before this Court, since this Court is satisfied that the assessment report made in relation to Subabul trees already being just and proper, the same to be adopted.

¶66

27. In the light of the same, the Writ Petition is hereby allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.

¶67

_____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana

¶68

Date : 4-12-2009

¶69

Avirneni Rama Krishna, v. The Government of Andhra PraDESH

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avirneni Rama Krishna, v. The Government of Andhra PraDESH

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kon Reddy Pedda Rama Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt Syed Khurshid Begum Vs the Govt of A.P and 2 Others

Anwar Baig Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kurva Chinna Narsappa, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Maggu Lakshmi Narayana, Vs The District Collector

Abbireddy Surya Rao, Vs The a.P.Co-operative Tribunal