N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.
1. These appeals, filed both by the land owners-Writ Petitioners and the State, are directed against a common order dated 24-2-1994 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 3956, 3957 and 3958 of 1991, ordering the respondents-State to pay compensation to the petitioners-land owners in respect of the cashew nut trees raised in the land acquired as estimated and fixed by the District Forest Officer, Nellore and to pay interest on the compensation from the date of receipt of the report of the Advocate Commissioner.
2. So far as the Writ Petitioners are concerned, they are aggrived by that portion of the order of the learned Single Judge, which said that the petitioners are entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the compensation amount with effect from the respective dates of the reports of the Advocate- Commissioner in the respective Writ Petitions till the date of payment, and not directing the authorities to fix the compensation as already done in respect of the other similarly situated owners, instead directing the District Forest Officer, Nellore to re-determine it.
3. The respondent-State has preferred the Writ Appeals aggrieved by that portion of the order of the learned Single Judge directing the respondents to pay the compensation in respect of the fruit bearing trees, Viz, cashew nut trees, palmyrah trees etc. and also to pay the interestat the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of reports of the Advocate-Commissioner in the respective Writ petitions as incorrect.
4. The facts of the cases relate to surrender of certain extents of land by the Writ Petitioners by virtue of the introduction of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') which came into force with effect from 1-1-1975 and the Rules framed thereunder - called as 1974 Rules-(for short 'the Rules'). The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3956 of 1991 have surrendered a total extent of Ac.399-55 cents of land and the possession was taken over on 3-1-1978. In the said land there were 1384 cashew nut trees, among other fruit bearing trees, as reported by the Advocate- Commissioners in their reports dated 16-1-1988 and 15-6-1988 respectively. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3957 of 1991 has surrendered a total extent of Ac. 293-24 cents of land and the possession was taken over on 10-11-1977. In said land there are 599 cashew nut trees, among other fruit bearing trees, as reported by the Advocate-Commissioner in his report dated 26-2-1983. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3958 of 1991 have surrendered a total extent of Ac.578-83 cents of land and the possession was taken over on two different dates i.e. on 3-1-1978 and 5-11-1978. In the said land there are 3122 cashew nut trees, among other fruit bearing trees, as reported by the Advocate-Commissioner in his report dated 1-7-1988. As entitled under law, the petitioners in the above said Writ Petitions have set up their claim for payment of compensation both in respect of the land, as per Schedule 2 of the Rules, and the fruit bearing trees, viz., palmyrah trees, cashew nut trees etc., and the compensation in respect of the lands was paid to them though at a later stage, but in case of the fruit bearing trees in the said lands, the same was delayed. It is stated by the petitioners that subsequently the respondents-authorities made calculations as to the compensation to be paid in respect of each fruit bearing tree by adopting an incorrect method without applying the method as adopted in case of other similar land owners, whose lands as well as fruit bearing trees were acquired and possession was taken over by the respondents and the compensation was paid to them. Accordingly, the above said three Writ Petitions were filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation in respect of the fruit bearing trees, as was done in other similar cases, and also to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date on which the possession was taken over.
5. The said claim of the petitioners was opposed by the respondent-State.
6. The learned Single Judge after considering each and every aspect in each case, and the provisions of the Act and the Rules, held that the Writ Petitioners are entitled for compensation in respect of the fruit bearing trees, and directed that the value of the said trees shall be fixed by the District Forest Officer, Nellore. It was also held that the petitioners are entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of the reports of the Advocate- Commissioner in the respective Writ Petitions till the date of payment.
7. Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in directing the respondents to pay compensation as estimated by the District Forest Officer, Nellore instead of directing them to pay the compensation as was paid in similarly circumstanced cases, of which there is a reference in the order. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge also erred in directing the payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of reports of the Advocate-Commissioner in the respective Writ Petitions, but it should have been directed from the date of taking possession of the lands and the interest ordered at the rate of 12% per annum is quite inadequate and it should have been ordered at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of taking possession of the said lands. He also submitted that the claim set up by the petitioners is quite reasonable in view of their surrendering huge extents of land and other fruit bearing trees, viz, palmyrah trees and cashew nut trees etc. raised thereon by investing huge sums and hoping the same to be their property but for coming into forces of Land Reforms Act.
8. As an answer to these contentions, Mr. K. Ashok Reddy - the learned Government Pleader for Revenue - argued that the claim made by the petitioners is a large one and the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the scope of the Act and the Rules made thereunder ordered the respondents to pay the compensation in respect of the fruit bearing trees and to avoid confusion the learned Single Judge directed the District Forest Officer, Nellore to fix the value of the trees. He further submitted that the interest ordered to be paid at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of the reports of the Advocate-Commissioner in the respective Writ Petitions is also reasonable and mere is no basis to claim interest from the date of taking possession and that the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled for interest at the rate of 18% per annum, in the absence of such a provision either under the Act or under the Rules, is not sustainable. Thus arguing, he submitted that the appeals filed by the claimants may be dismissed and the appeals of the State may be allowed.
9. On a perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge and the arguments advanced on both sides, if properly understood, the main grievance revolve around awarding of rate of interest from the date on which the claimants are entitled to. It is not in dispute that the claimants are entitled for compensation both in respect of the land acquired and also the fruit bearing trees. No doubt, the Act and the Rules are silent as to the payment of interest. Merely because the Act and the Rules are silent, it does not mean that when a landed property is acquired and taken possession by the State, the owner of the said land shall not be compensated by way of interest on the compensation awarded. In the case on hand, Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is fair enough in his submission that his clients are not claiming any interest in respect of the compensation given for the land surrendered, but they are claiming interest on the compensation to be determined in respect of the fruit bearing trees. If, at the moment the possession of fruit bearing trees was taken, the compensation was paid to the claimants, there would have been no grievance, or even if the grievance was made later it would not have been valid, and the Courts would not have entertained such a grievance for payment of interest.
10. There is no proper explanation why the State kept silent for all these years when the fruit bearing trees belonging to the petitioners were taken over and compensation not paid. If the compensation was immediately paid to the claimants, definitely they would have reinvested the same, as contended by Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy, by purchasing some other property or by depositing the same in the Bank, which would have definitely accrued some interest. There is much force in the contention of Mr. Ramana Reddy that his clients are entitled for interest, whereas the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the claimants are not entitled for interest has no merit.
11. In view of the circumstances explained, we do not think that the interest at the rate of 12% per annum ordered by the learned Single Judge is incorrect. But the time to reckon should have been from the date of taking possession but not from the respective dates of the reports of the Advocate-Commissioner. As such, the claimants are entitled for interest on the compensation to be awarded in respect of the fruit bearing trees at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of taking possession till the expiry of four months from the date of the impugned order (i.e., 24-6-1994). From 25-6-1994, till payment, the interest shall be at 15% per annum on the said compensation. The compensation payable in respect of the fruit bearing trees shall be determined by the concerned Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, forthwith, after calling for the report of the District Forest Officer, Nellore and the compensation be paid to the petitioners within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.
12. With the above observations, the Writ Appeals are disposed of, but m the circumstances no order as to costs.