VEMAREDDY KUMARASWAMY REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P
LAWS(SC)-2006-2-77
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on February 13,2006

VEMAREDDY KUMARASWAMY REDDY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. - (1.) THESE appeals involve identical issues and are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Factual background is almost undisputed and the controversy relates to the scope and ambit of Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (in short the 'Ceiling Rules'). The appellants were holding land in excess of the limit prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (in short 'the Act'). The surplus land was surrendered by them which had cashew nut tree plantation. On the surrendered land the trees were fruit bearing trees. The dispute relates to the amount payable in respect of fruit bearing trees standing on the land which were surrendered by the appellant. The number of trees is also not in dispute. The amount payable for the land vested in the Government the amounts were duly paid. With regard to the amount payable for fruit bearing trees a Commissioner Was appointed, who submitted a report regarding number of fruit bearing trees and other trees standing on the land so surrendered. The Commissioner of Land Rerforms urban Ceiling, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh directed the District Colleetor to issue necessary instructions not to fix the compensation payable in respect of the trees under the Rules until further orders. According to the authorities the payment was to be made for one year only and not for thirty years as was claimed by the appellants.
(2.) WRIT petitions were filed before the High Court which came to be dismissed by the impugned orders. Mr. M. N. Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court is not correct in its view that the appellants are not entitled to get the amount for 30 years and in accepting the stand of the Government that it was payable only for one year. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other submitted the view of the High Court is clearly unexceptionable. The purpose and object of the Statute under which the lands were surrendered cannot be lost sight of. The appellants have been rightly held to be entitled for amounts payable for one year.
(3.) IN order to appreciate the rival submissions a few provisions needs to be noted: A. Section 15 of the Act. "15. Amount payable for lands vested in the Government: The amount payable for any land vested in the Government under this Act, shall be a sum calculated at the rates specified in the Second Schedule and it shall be paid at the option of the Government, either in cash or in bonds or partly in cash and partly in bonds. The bonds shall be issued on such terms and carry such rate of interest as may be prescribed." B. Schedule II to the Act Clause (3) of the Second Schedule to the Act provides as follows: "Where the land contains any fruit bearing trees or permanent structures, the amount payable therefor shall be calculated in such manner as may be prescribed." C. Rule 11 of the Rules. "11. Fixation on value for fruit bearing trees and structures etc. (1) The amount payable for fruit bearing trees shall be at the seignorage rates notified by the District Forest Officer as applicable to the district from time to time and for the Tribunal may require the District Forest Officer in whose jurisdiction the land is situated to furnish an estimate of the amount payable for such trees. (2) The amount payable for the structures of permanent nature shall be equivalent to the depreciated value of the structure as on the specified date and for mis purpose the Tribunal may require the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Division, in the district to furnish an estimate of the depreciated value of such structure." At this juncture it is important to take note of the notifications published in the Nellore District Gazettes dated 21-3-1982 and 23-4-1982. There is no dispute that the amounts payable for fruit bearing trees shall be at the "seignorage rates" notified by the District Forest Officer from time to time.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.