Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioners herein own lands in different survey numbers of J.Annavaram Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, East Godavari District. Their lands to an extent of Acs.5.35 cents and Acs.4.70 cents respectively were notified for acquisition on 21.09.1988, along with certain other lands, by publishing a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The purpose was to provide house sites to the displaced persons in Yeleswaram Reservoir Project. Possession of the land was also taken on 31.10.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 01.09.1989 fixing the market value for the land at the rate of Rs.20,160/-. So far as the trees and structures are concerned, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the same in respect of the appellant in A.S.No.1898 of 2000 at Rs.30,150/- (for trees) and Rs.45,371/- (for structures) and in respect of appellant in A.S.No.2123 of 2000, the value of the trees was fixed at Rs.4,558/- and there did not exist any structures. Not satisfied with the award, the appellants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. References were taken up as O.P.Nos.14 and 15 of 1990 by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram. Through its order, dated 09.10.1998, the trial Court enhanced the market value for the land to Rs.55,000/- per acre. However, no enhancement was ordered in respect of trees and structures. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners filed A.S.Nos.1898 and 2123 of 2000. This Court dismissed the appeals through a common judgment, dated 12.03.2012. It was observed that no material was placed before the trial Court enabling it to enhance the compensation for trees and structures. The petitioners contend that the procedure adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer himself in determining the compensation for trees was erroneous and in addition to that, Exs.B13 and B14 were filed before the trial Court in relation thereto. They contend that factual error has crept into the order passed by this Court, since it was proceeded as though there was no material in respect of trees and structures. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents.
