Writ Appeal No. 394 of 2003 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.8312 of 2002 filed by the appellants-writ petitioners, at the admission stage on the ground of laches. Facts, which are not in dispute, are as under: All the petitioners filed declarations under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 C.C.Nos.763, 738, 723, 744, 742/GDR/75. On finalization of the declarations, they had surrendered the land of an extent of Ac.1200-00 situated in Momidi and Thamminapatnam villages in the year 1997. Since trees existed in the surrendered land, at the request of the petitioners, the Commissioners were appointed. The Commissioners visited the lands and noted the existence of the trees, during finalization of the declarations and submitted three reports dated 18.2.1983, 24.2.1983 and 26.2.1983 showing the trees existed in the surrendered land of the declarants. The grievance of the petitioners is that except payment of the compensation for the palmyrah trees in the year 1997, the compensation payable for the fruit bearing trees was not assessed and paid and they made a representation in the year 1998 for assessment of compensation payable them as per Commissioners’ reports. As the said representations did not receive any response, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the above writ petition in the year 2002 and the same was dismissed at the admission stage by the learned single Judge on the ground of laches.

Since the writ petition has been dismissed at the admission stage, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer pending the appeal, admitting the Advocate- Commissioner has submitted the report on 24.2.1983 and the compensation for the fruit bearing trees of palmarah was already paid on 28.1.1997 as mentioned hereunder: C.C.No. Name of the Declarant Amount 763/GDR/75 Vemareddi Venugopal Reddy Rs.10,170/- 738/GDR/75 732/ GDR/75 Vemareddi Venkata Krishna Reddy Vemareddi Krishnamma Rs.1,740/- Rs.6,705/- 744/ GDR/75 Vemareddi Sreedhar Reddy Nil 742/ GDR/75 Yeratapalli Meenakshamma Rs.2,81,043/- 723/ GDR/75 Vemareddi Murali Mohan Reddy Rs.10,170/- It is also admitted in the counter that some other claimants, whose lands were surrendered and to whom the compensation was paid for the fruit bearing trees taking into consideration of the age of the tree as on the date of surrender i.e., 12 years, claimed the compensation for thirty years period, but only after the Supreme Court granted relief in their favour for the remaining 18 years, the compensation was paid to them and that since the petitioners are not diligent in prosecuting their matter and for the first time in the year 2002, they claimed compensation after lapse of 20 years, their claim is barred by limitation. It is further admitted that in the case of one declarant viz., Y. Meenakshmma, 6th petitioner-declarant in C.C.No.742/GDR/75, the District Collector, Nellore passed orders on 12.9.2007 for payment of compensation for the fruit bearing trees as Rs.6,68,027/- towards principal amount, with interest upto

31.12.2006 as Rs.31,61,831/-, thus, for total compensation of Rs.38,33,858/- and that the said Meenakshamma died and none of her legal heirs had come forward to claim the said amount and if any of the legal heirs with proof makes an application, the said amount will be paid. Insofar as the other appellants are concerned, it is submitted in the counter that the compensation for palmyrah trees was already paid and the claim of compensation for other trees is barred by laches. We do not find any reason or logic in the stand taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer for denying the compensation to the appellants-petitioners for the simple reason that all the declarations were finalized by a common order and all the appellants-petitioners submitted petitions for payment of compensation for the fruit bearing trees, in which the Commissioners were appointed for noting down the existence of fruit bearing trees in the surrendered lands and the Commissioners reports separately viz., one C.C.Nos.732 and 763/GDR/75, dated 24.2.1983; another C.C.Nos.738 and 744/GDR/75, dated 18.2.1983 and the other in C.C.Nos.723 & 742/GDR/75, dated 26.2.1983.

Since the payment of compensation had to be finalized by the Tribunal and it is statutorily obligated to decide payment of compensation, the Commissioners were appointed and reports were obtained. It is for the Tribunal to assess the compensation basing upon the reports and pay the same. Admittedly, the compensation, which was paid to the appellants-petitioners, was for palmyrah trees, but compensation payable to the fruit bearing trees was not assessed. But the same was finalized only in case of one declarant i.e., Meenakshamma, after four years of dismissal of the writ petition and during pendency of this appeal. In view of the same, the other appellants-petitioners are entitled to the compensation for the fruit bearing trees to be assessed on the very same Commissioners’ report, which is the basis for finalization of compensation. In the above facts and circumstances, the Land Reforms Tribunal is directed to assess the compensation payable to the appellants-petitioners 1, 2, 4, and 5 and appellants 7 & 8, who are legal representatives of the 3rd appellant-petitioner, after giving an opportunity to them, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pay the compensation so assessed.