VEMAREDDY KUMARASWAMY REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the rival submissions a few provisions needs to be noted: A. Section 15 of the Act.