IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND ANpD EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16911 of 2005 Between: Koduri Subba Rao, S/o.Raghavulu, R/o.Nallajerla, W.G.district, Rep by his G.P.A.Bikkini Veerajaya Babu, S/o.Bhupathi Rao, 25 Yrs. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, W.G.District at Eluru. 2 The Special Tahsildar (L.A), Land Acquisition Officer, Jangareddy Gudem, W.G.District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.V.SIVAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not following guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.601 Revenue (LA) Department, dated 19-06-1992 for payment of compensation for the 56 coconut trees situated on the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 cents in R.S.No.663/3 of Nallajerla Village, West Godavari District, which was acquired for Yerrakalva Project, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. An extent of Ac.1.00 cents comprised in R.S.No.663/3 of Nallajerla Village, West Godavari District, which stood in the name of Smt Koduri Naga Parvathi Devi, wife of the petitioner, was acquired for a canal project. An award under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was passed. Prior to passing of the award, the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Tahasildar called for a report from the Assistant Director, Horticulture, Eluru, West Godavari District, wherein it is mentioned that 56 coconut trees were in existence over the extent of Ac.1.00 cents belonging to the wife of the petitioner, which was acquired by the respondents, and compensation payable for the said coconut trees was Rs.79,266/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that while paying compensation, the respondents have not paid compensation for the value of the coconut trees. The petitioner caused a legal notice issued to the respondents on 20-07-2004. Despite the same, he was not paid compensation for the value of the coconut trees and hence, he filed the present writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Yerrakalva Project, Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District, it is, inter alia, averred that an extent of Acs.38.11 cents in R.S.Nos.214/2B, 216/2A, 217/1, 239/2B of Nallajerla Village and Mandal, West Godavari District was acquired under consent Award No.1 of 2004 dated 21-01-2004; that out of the total extent of Acs.38.11 cents, an extent of Ac.1.00 land of the petitioner’s wife was acquired; that during the negotiations, she gave her consent for payment of Rs.80,000/- per acre towards the cost of the acquired land and accordingly she signed on a stamped bond worth Rs.20/-. It is pleaded that all the land owners have entered into agreement in Forms-III and IV in pursuance of the District Level Negotiations Committee Rules and received compensation without any protest. It is further stated that there are 87 land owners and none of them claimed tree value except the petitioner. It is further stated that the amount of Rs.80,000/- per acre includes the value of the compensation for trees standing on the land in question. The petitioner filed a reply-affidavit, wherein while admitting that the owners of the land including the wife of the petitioner gave their consent for receiving Rs.80,000/- per acre towards compensation, he, however, stated that his wife has not voluntarily signed on Forms-III and IV and signatures were obtained by coercion on blank papers and proformas without disclosing their contents. While refuting the averment contained in the counter-affidavit that no land owner has claimed compensation for the value of the trees, the petitioner specifically stated that Chelluri Veera Venkateswara Rao and others of Ananthapalli Village of Nallajerla Mandal requested for compensation for trees on the land acquired for the same purpose and accepting such a request, respondent No.2 passed supplemental award fixing compensation for the trees. The petitioner filed a copy of the supplemental award in support of his averment. On the direction of the Court, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition produced the record. A perusal of the record shows that Form-III signed by the wife of the petitioner is in the nature of a printed proforma, wherein at page 2 the printed form containing blanks mentioned that the package deal represents the market value of the land including structural value and tree value/additional market value, solatium and interest, if any. In the blanks left in the proforma, the details of the payment of compensation and the extent of the land are mentioned. The record also contains another proforma in vernacular language, which consists of 15 columns written in Telugu and signed by the petitioner’s wife. Against column No.10, to the query as to whether the land has wells or other structures, it is written that structures and a borewell are in existence apart from 56 coconut trees. Interestingly at page 37 of the award, it is stated that the wife of the petitioner, inter alia, stated that there are no trees, bores, permanent structures, tombs or any other religious monuments on the land in question. The Land Acquisition Officer also relied on Forms-III and IV in fixing the amount of Rs.80,000/- per acre as compensation inclusive of all the benefits in pursuance of the consent given by the land owners. A careful analysis of the above mentioned material shows that there are inherent discrepancies in the making of award. While the proforma signed by the land owner contains the clause that the value of the property, under acquisition, was inclusive of structures and trees, the award contains a specific recital that the owner of the land had stated that there are no trees in existence. Apart from this patent contradiction, the other proforma, which was signed by the wife of the petitioner, shows that there are 56 coconut trees. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition relied on Forms-III and IV to drive home her contention that the land owner having given her consent for giving away the land with structures and trees is estopped from resiling and claiming compensation for the trees. In view of the patent contradictions discussed above, I do not find myself in agreement with the learned Assistant Government Pleader. Sri A.V.Sivaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the wife of the petitioner did not have the knowledge of understanding English and her signature was taken on the proforma and she had no knowledge of its contents. A perusal of Form-III shows that while the contents of the form are in English, the wife of the petitioner subscribed her signature in Telugu. There is no endorsement on the form that the contents of the form were read over to her and she signed the said form after she was made to understand its contents. This circumstance, coupled with the further fact that the award contains the recital that the petitioner gave a statement that there were no trees, shows that there was total non-application of mind on the part of the respondents in preparing the consent award. If the parties had a clear understanding that the market value of Rs.80,000/- was inclusive of the structures and trees, there was no reason, whatsoever, for not mentioning the said fact in the award. While Form-III proceeds on the premise that the compensation fixed is inclusive of value of structures and trees, the award proceeds in an opposite direction by stating that there are no trees. As already noted, hereinabove, in the form containing vernacular columns, column No.10 clearly mentioned the existence of 56 trees, which is also signed by the wife of the petitioner. Hence, the statement contained in the award that there were no trees is patently contrary to the statement given by the wife of the petitioner, which is available on record. On a holistic consideration of the case, I am of the considered view that the purported consent award had not taken into consideration the value of the trees and the doctrine of estoppel pleaded by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the facts of this case, cannot be pressed into service against the petitioner and his wife through whom the petitioner is making a claim. Interestingly, Award No.22 of 2003, dated 01-07-2003 under which the lands of Chelluri Veera Venkateswara Rao were acquired for the same purpose also contained a statement similar to the one contained in the award in the instant case, namely; that the owner of the land stated that there are no trees, bores and permanent structures on the land. But, it is admitted that a supplemental award was made on 12-05-2005. Admittedly, the said award was also a consent award. There is no reason why the respondents in that case have not taken the same stand as is being taken in this case and declined to pass a supplemental award on the ground that his request for passing of a supplemental award for value of trees constitutes estoppel. The respondents cannot be permitted to apply different yardsticks for different persons who are, more or less, similarly situated. In the instant case, the respondents have not denied existence of trees, but as already noted, their rejection to pass a supplemental award for the value of the trees is only based on the factum that the award passed in favour of the wife of the petitioner was a consent award and hence, she cannot ask for more than what she has consented to receive. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pass a supplemental award on the basis of the material available on record with reference to the existence of the coconut trees. On an examination of the material, if it is found that there existed coconut trees, they shall assess their market value under the provisions of the Act and pass a supplemental award, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 7th July, 2008 vrn