The High Court · 2025

(Special Deput y Collector Sri ...RESPONDENTiRESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants: Sri V. Manohar Rao Counsel for the Respondent: GP for Appeals The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.607 OF 2Ol3 JUDGMENT a [,et ,e Hon bte sd rusn e Abtunai(t Kuttur stnuth When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel frrr the zrppellants had informed the Court that the issue raised in the present Appeal is squarely covered by the judgment, dated

23.Ot).2O13, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in l,.A.A.S.No.632 of 2OlO, wherein a Division Bench of rhis Court was pleased to enhance the market value of the acqurrecl land to l<s.7U,OOO/- per acre for both the wet lands and dry lands and I'urther held that the the appellants therein are entitled to all the lrenefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 r.c., solatium (., 30 under Section 23 (21 of the Act; l2'%' additional market value from the date of notification till the date of award under Section 23 (1) (A) ol the Act and interest (a) 9o/o per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of award passed by the Land Ac<luisitir.rn ()fficer and l5oA per annum till the date ol realization. I)y lollowing the aforesaid judgment, the present Appeal also <leserves to lre disposed of. I I 2 j'i

2. Learnecl Government Pleader for Appeal appearing frrr the respondcnt cli,l not dispute about the said fact I r-r vicu' rI thc same, this Court is oI the considcrr:r] vicr'r' t]tat

3. the present ;rppeal can also be disposed of in tr:rrrs of lhrr judgmcnt, dated 23.O9.2O13 passed in L.A.A S.No 632 ol' 2Ol{) lt1 the Division Bench of this Court.

4. Accordinllll', the Appeal is disposed of in lerrr s ol t hc judgment, ri'.Ltecl 23.O9.2O13 passed in L.A.A.S.No.6?'2 o 2()1O l>v thc Division t-tcnch of this Court. There shall be no or,.ler'bs to CoStS. Misr:cllaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Ap:eal sh:rll stand closccl //TRUE COPY// I A.V.S.S.C S.M, $ARMA JOINT REG/STRAR \ SECTION OFFICER .t To,

1. The chairman, I and Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-ll Adoitional District Judge. Nalgonda at Suryapet.(wlthrecords, -if z i*o"Ccs td Gp tor Rpp6ais, l-ilgn Court for the State ot Telangana [oUTl 3. One CC to Sn V lvlanohar Rao Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies any) . (Along u,ith a copr ol'.lutllrtncnt Dt. 2ll91201i passcd in LASS No 6i2/2010 ) VH I r \ {h;F t HIGH COURT DATED: 3010112025 JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.607 of 2013 +-) o O ---''_: 1:-:r-i ilA 4- c)k 0s APR 216 o CF ,j DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS r.-.. v w *ryrr THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D. SESHADRI NAIDU L.A.A.S.No.632 of 20lO JUDGMENT: (per AM,J) The land owners have fited this appeal being aggrieved by the order daled 20.07.2009 passed by the ll Addiuonal District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet yde which the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer awarding compensation of Rs.35,000/- per acre for wet rands and Rs.25,000/- per acre for dry lands was upheld and no enhancement was made, The Land Acquisition Officer (Special Deputy Collector), Sri Ram Sagar project, Stage_ll, Nalgonda, issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short.the Act,) dated 19.06.2001 intending to acquire Ac.1 1.34 guntas of wet land and Ac.0.0S guntas of dry land situated at Velishala Village, Thirumalagiri fMandal, for the public purpose, nameiy, for excavation of Sri Flam Sagar project, Kakatiya tVain Canal. The Land Acquisition Officer vlde his award dated ZO.O1 .ZOO1- determined the cornpensation at Rs.35,u00/- pGi acre for wei rands and Rs.25,000/- per acre for dry lands. Being not satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition officer, the rand owners fired apprications under section ig of the Act for refening the matter to Civil Court. On reference, the ll Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, found that the sale deeds relied upon by the land owners relate to very small pieces of land and hence, they cannot form basis for determination of the compensaUon and accordingly, upheld the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the Nil award of the reference Court, the present appeal has been filed. o, them pertain to velishala Village and fiat even if the sare deeds of small pieces of land are taken into consideration, compensation could have been determined by applying a reasonable cul The sale deeds reliecj on by the land owners were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.g. The details of which are as under: Jrxmuit Date of Sale Extent / Village Ex.A.1

15.09.1998 242 Sq.yards (0.02 gts), Velishala Sale consideration per acre 1,22,000/- per Ex.A.2 Ex.A.3 Ex.A.4

13.10.1998 03.06.1999 28.12.1999 -do- 111 Sq ards 202 Sq.yards 2,42,000/- 5,01,441t- 1,31,262t- Ex.A.5

10.01 .2000 121 Sq.yards 1,40,000t- Ex.A.6

8.5.2000 Ex.A.7 Ex.A.8

25.05.2000

16.4.2001 363 Sq.yards (0.02 gts) 213 Sq.yards 142 Sq.yards 1,26,666/- 2,49.918/- 5,11,267/- Ex.A.9

22.6.2001 65 Sq.yards 2,97,U6/- Re'narks Not cons idered on the ground vendor/vendee not examinecl -clo- -do- ,' il is P.W vendee Not considered on the grouncl vendor/ve ldee not examined -do- P.W.3 \lendor Not considered on the ground vendcir/vendee not examined P-W.4 rs the Vendrtr. On the other hand, the leamed Government pleader for Appeals appearing for the State submits thal lhe sale deeds relied upon by the land owners cannot form basis for determination o, compensation in the oresent case, as they pertain to very small extents of land. He further subnlits that the award passed bv the Land Acquisition officer is just and reasonab e. We have hear.d the learned counsel for the parties at length anC have perused the impugned order. lnsofar as Exs.A.3, A.5, A.g and A.9 are concerned, lhe same pertain to very small pieces of land i.e., less than 200 square yards, hence, the same --r-rt, to sale ot land between the years lggg and 2000 and are of an area ranging from more than 200 square yards upto s6o square yards and thus, the compensation can be determined taking average sale price ot the aforesaid five sale deeds and thereafter, imposing a cut of 60% on the average price. If this formula is adopted, then the averago price of the said five sale deeds comes to Rs.1,75,000/- per acre and if 60% cut is applied, then the valuation of the land comes to RS.70,O0O/_ per acre. The learned counsel for the appellants states that he is not claiming any appreciation on account of the fact that the lands, which are subject matter of sale of Exs.A.l , A.2, A.4, 4.6 and A.7, were sold iust prior to issuance of notitication under Section 4(1) o, the Act. ln view of the above discussion, we enhance the market value of the acquired land to Rs.70,000/_ per acre for both the wet lands as well as the dry land, as the dry land measures only Ac.0.05 guntas. The appellants are also entifled to all the benefits under the Act i.e,,.solatium at 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act, 121" addidonal market value from the date of notification till the date ot award under Section 23(1XA) of the Act and interest @g% per annum on lhe enhanced corhpensation from the date of award passed by the Land Acquisition fficer for the first one year and lhereafter @15% per annum till the date o, realisation. The appeal is accordingly allowed wirr proportionate costs. Date:23.09.2013 ASH UTOSH MOHUNTA, J D.SESHADRT NAIDU, J IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVTLI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA LAND ACQUISITI ON FIRST APPEAL NO: 607 OF 2013 Between:

1. Ellemla lsthari S/o. Lachaiah, aged about 54 years 2. Ellemla Pullaiah S/o. Buchiramulu, aged about 63 years 3. Ellemla Lachaiah S/o. lsthari, aged about 50 years 4. Ellemla Rajaiah S/o. Lachaiah, aged about 52 years 5. Gaddam Kistaiah S/o. llaiah, aged about 55 years 6. Kadari Somamallu S/o. Chandraiah, aged about 53 years 7. Ellemla Ramulu Sio. Chandraiah, aged about 49 years 8. Kadari Avilaiah S/o. Rajamallu aged about 62 years 9. tt/logili Venkataiah S/o. Ramachandraiah, aged about 53 years '10- tvlogili Veerasomulu S/o. Ramachandraiah, aged about 55 years 1 '1 . Jatothu Manja S/o. Chinna Bikya, aged about 60 years 12- Jangaon Ramaswamy S/o. Venkataiah, aged about 6'1 years -13. Jangaon Kotaiah S/o- Venkataiah, aged about 55 years 14. Ellamla Somaiah S/o. lsthari 15 Kadari Anjaiah S/o. Mallaiah, 16. Ellamla Peda Mallaiah S/o. Buchaiah, 17 .Ellamla Muthaiah S/o. lsthari, 18. Ellamla Abilaiah S/o. Bakkaiah, 19. Ellamla Somaiah S/o. Chandraiah, 20. Ellamla Ramulu S/o. Chandraiah, 21.Kadari Ramulu S/o. Muthaiah 22.Ellemla Sailu S/o. Landraiah 23.Kadari Ramulu S/o. Veeramallu, 24. Gaddam Chandramma Wo. lvluthaiah, 25. ltta Kamalakar 26. Kadari Sailu S/o. Muthaiah, .--T'f . ..3' All are Agricultrrrists, R/o. Velishala Village, Thirumalagiri Mandal, Nalgonda District, ...APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, through L.A.O. (Special Deput'/ Collector Sri Ram Sagar Prolect, Stage-ll, Nalgonda) ,..RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Appeal filed unrler Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against the order and decree dated 2o-7-2OOg in LAOP No.696 of 2004 (old oP No. 934 of 2002) on the file of The chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at SLrryaPet. This appeal conl ng on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Dec,-ee of the court below and the material paperrs in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. fulanohar Rao, Advocate for the'appellants and GP fro Appeals for the Respondent. ThiS Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the Appeal be and hereby is disposed of in terms of the luJgment, dated 23.O9.2013 passed in L.A.A.S, No. 632 of 2010 by the Divisiorr Bench of this Court; and

2. ThaI there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// / / A.V.S.S.C.S.M. gARMA JOINT REGISTRAR rl\U SECTION OFFICER To, VII '1 . The Chairman, l-and Reforms Appellate Tribunal-Cum-ll Additional District 2. Two CD Copies Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet. -7-------------t HIGH COURT DATED: 3010112025 DECREE LAAS,No.607 of 2013 ) ( * '--"'-\"r'. tr.-._ Og APil TiZ, I I ll:,qt^wtl' DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS