High Court · 2025

LAND ACGIUISITION FIRST AP PEAL No.69 OF 20191 Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisi tion Act, 1894, against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda in L-A.o.P-No.86 ot 201 4, dt.'1 6.08.201 8. Between: The Special Deputy Collector (LA), (Alimeneti lvladhava Reddy) AMR Project, Unit-lV. G.V.Gudem, Nalgonda. APPellanUResondent AND

1. Mandadi Ravinder Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, Aged 51 Years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist ,

2.KasarlaKamalamma,Wo.SathiReddy,AgedSSYears,OccAgriculture,R/o' Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist.,

3. lr,4andadi Shekar Reddy, S/o. Jan Reddy, Aged 54 Years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist,

4. Irilandadi l\iladhava Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy, Agei 68 Years, Occ AgiiCutture R/o. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda lvlandal and Dist ,

5. Mandadi Jan Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Ag-ed 74 Years, Occ Agriculture' RJo. Cherlapally Viliage, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist , R/o. Cherlapdlly Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist

6. Mandadi Parijatha, Wo. lndrasena Reddy, Aged 51 Years, Occ Agriculture, 7. Mandadi Pushpamma, Wo. Madhava Re99v, |Sug ^?? Years, Occ 8. Sheera Chandraiah, S/o. Jangaiah, Aged 56 Years, Occ Agriculture, R/o' ngiiCrft,rr", R/o. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist

9. trlandacii Seshamma, W/o. Jan Recidy, Ageci 64 Years, Occ Agriculture R/o' Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist.,

10.cunna Linqa Reddv, S/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged 59 Years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. Cherlaially Villige, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist ' 'I 1 L.looala Madusudhan Reddv, S/o. Chalapathi Reddy, Aged 59 Years, Occ Abiiculture, R/o. CherlapallyVillage, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist '

12. uDoala Venkat Reddv, S/o- Matta Reddy, Aged 39 Years' Occ Agriculture, Aid. Cnenapatty Villag'e, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist.,

13.UoDala Adi Reddv, S/o. Linga Reddy, Aged 49 Years, Occ Agriculture, R/o' Chbdapally Village, Nalgond- Mandal and Dist.,

14. Uooala Ranqa Reddv, S/o. Linga Reddy, Aged 60 Years, Occ Agriculture R/o' Chbrtapalty Vittage, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist., l5.BandaMallaiah,S/o.Chandraiah,Aged4gYears,OccAgriculture,R/o' Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist., l6.BandaNarsimha,S/o,Chandraiah,Aged54Years,OccAgriculture,R/o' ' Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist , '17. Panasa Saidulu, S/o. Ramulu, Aged 49 years, Occ Agriculture R/o. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandaiand Dist -- -'

18. Uppala Chandra Reddy, S/o, Gopal Reddy, Aged 54 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Chertapaily Viilagd, Natgondi t,tanoir'jna"oiit- ' l9.Basireddy Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o. . Gopal Reddy, Aged 49 years, Occ Agricuttu.e, R:/o. Chertapaily Vittage, ruaffia"'frilin'ciaf and Dist., 20.Kakarla Goutham Reddy, S/o Late Sathi Reddy, aged 54 years, Occ; Agricutture. R/o Ctiertapaily Vittage, f\Ltg6hdi diitrict. .. ... Respondents/petitioners/Claimants Counsel forthe Respondents: c. p. FORAPPEALS Counsel for the Appe ants: SRI p. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALTSHETTY LAAS.Nos .26 and 69 of 20 19 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Larmi Naray(tna Alishetty) LAAS.No.26 of 2019 is filed by the claimants' under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act')' aggrieved by the order and decree dated 16'08'2018 passed in LAOP.No.86 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge' Nalgonda (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court') and seeking enhancement of the market value of the acquired lands as was ltxed by the Reference Courl'

2. LAAS.No.69 of 2Ol9 is filed by the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Nalgonda, under Section 54 of the Act' aggrieved by the aforesaid order and decree, and praying to set aside the said order and thereby, confirming the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

3. Since both the Appeals arise out ofthe same order' they are heard together and are being disposed of by common judgment' 2 AKS,J&LNA,J LAAS Nos 26 & 69 of20t9

4. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arayed in LAAS.No.26 of 2019.

5. Heard Sri P.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants and leamed Government pieader for Appeals appearing for the Land Acquisition Officer. perused the entire material available on record.

6. In nut-shell, the undisputed facts of the case are that the subject lands, situated in Sy.Nos.4g,5g, 6l to 63, 65 and 69 to74 of Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda District, belonging to the claimants were acquired for the purpose of excavation of USLIS Approach Canal and Tunnel of AMRp in the village limits of Cherlapally; that, dtaft Notifieation under Section a(l) of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette on 29.12.2010; that draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in A.p. Gazette on 07.03.2011; that the Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry, passed Award, vide proceedings No.F/545/2009, dated 25.04.2013, hxing the market value of the subject acquired lands @ Rs.1,35,000/- per acre. ) AKS.J&LNA,J LAAS.N,'26 & 69 of 2019 7 . The claimants received the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was referred to the competent civil Court and was numbered as L'A'O'P'No'86 of 2014 on the file of the Reference Court.

8. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the claimants' P.Ws-1 to 4 were examined and Exs'P-l and P-5 were marked' On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined and Ex'B-1- AwardandEx.B-2.Authorizatioinletterdated08.ll.20l5givenin favour of Deputy Tahsildar were marked' g. The Reference Court, on due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, enhanced the market value of the acquired lands from Rs.1,35,000/- per acre to Rs'10'00'000/- per acre apart from granting all the statutory benefits under the Act to the claimants.

10. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Reference Court failed to appreciate the registered sale deeds under Exs.A-l to A-4 and take into consideration the prices mentioned 4 ,,IKS,J&LNA.J LAAS Nos.26 & 69 of2019 therein for fixing the market value of the acquired lands; that the Reference Court has failed to consider the fact that the acquired lands are highly potential vis-d-vis their topography, texture, fertility, etc., and as the acquired lands are located in the municipal limits of Nalgonda town, they got lot of demand for commercial . purposes and house sites; that the Reference courl has failed to appreciate the evidence of p.W_2-vendee of Ex.A_2, who deposed that the acquired lands are highly potentiar than the rands covered under Ex.A-2, and thereby, erred in granting less compensation. He further contended that the Reference Court granted less compensation towards consortium, additional market value and lower interest. By contending thus, leamed counsel prays to enhance the market value of the acquireci land @ Rs.20,00,000/_ per acre, apart from granting justif,rable consortium, additional market value, etc., benefits under the Land Acquisition Act to the claimants. I 1. In support of his submissions, leamed counsel for the claimants relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 5 AKS.J&LNA,J I-4AS.Noi.2 6 & 69 oJ 20 19 in Mahesh Dattatruy Vs. Statet, New Okhla Vs' Harnan&' Sundar Vs. Union of Ind.ia3, Chimanlal Hargovinddas V* Special Land Acquisition Ollicer, Ponna and anothera ' Land Vs. Narasaiahs and Union of India Vs' Acquisition Officer Balrsm6.

12. On the other handr' leamed Govemment Pleader for Appeals appearing for the Land Acquisition Otficer contended that the Reference Court failed to take note of the fact that the Land Acquisition Offrcer after referring to and considering the sale deeds of the relevant period, fixed market value of the subject acquired lands, which reflects true and correct market value; that the Reference Court, without there being any cogent evidence adduced by the claimants, erred in enhancing the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer by ten times, which is contrary to the actual prevailing market value at the relevant time of acquisition and therefore, he prayed to set aside the impugned order of the ' ArR 2oo9 sc 2238 'zo2+ scc online sc t69t I zootls; er.o t:o 1sc; n AtR t988 sc t65z t erR 2oot sc llz 6 lzoro; s scc u+z 6 AKS,J&LNA-,1 LA-45.Nos.26 & 69 of20t9 Reference Court, thereby, conflrming the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Ofhcer.

13. The claimants, in support of their claim for higher market value for the subj ect acquired lands, have got marked Exs.p_l to P-6 and Ex.X- 1 , apart from examining p.Ws. I to 4 on their behalf.

14. It is the case of the claimants as regards the topography, potentiality, etc., of the subject acquired lands that Cherlapally, wherein the subject acquired lands are situated, is adjoining Nalgonda Headquarters on Narketpally to Addanki Highway; that Cherlapally is a highly developed village and several house site ventures and residential colonies came up within one kilorneter from the acquired lands since 2005 onwards: that educational institutions like Mahatma Gandhi University, several automobile showrooms and commercial establishments are nearby the acquired lands, which shows its potentiality and the development in and around Cherlapally Village.

15. To show the prevailing market value of the acquired lands as on the date of acquisition, the claimants got examined p.W_2, 7 AKS,J&I,NA,J LAAS.Nos.26 & 69 of 2019 vendee of Ex.A-2-sale deed, who deposed as to the contents of Ex.A-Z, whereunder an extent of Ac'0'20 guntas of land in Sy.No.276 of Pittampally Village was sold for consideration @ Rs.10,00,000i- per acre. Ex.A-1-sale deed is in respect of land in Sy.Nos.274 and 275 of Pittampally Village, which reflects the marketvalueofthelandasRs.l0,00,000lperacre'Admittedly' the acquired lands are in Cherlapally Village and the lands covered under Exs.A-l and A-2-sale deeds are in Pittampally Village'

16. Now, it has to be seen whether the sale deeds pertaining to Pittampally Village can be taken as yardstick for fixing the market value of the subj ect acquired lands situated in Cherlapally Village' l7 . As per the evidenee of P'W-2, though the distance between Cherlapally and Pittampally Village is three kilometers' the outskirts of both the said villages are abutting each other' As regards the topography of Cherlapally Village, the admission of the Land Acquisition Officer as R.W-l goes to show that she deposed that Pittampally is adjoining the acquired lands' Therefore' it can be safely held that the claimants established that Piltampally and Cherlapally Villages are adjoining each other and as such' their 8 AKS.J&LNA,J LA-45.Nos.26 & 69 of 2019 contention that sale deeds pertaining to pittampaliy Village can be taken as guiding factor for determination of market value of the subject acquired Iands merits consideration.

18. However, in the Award, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the subject acquired lands by adopting sale deed in respect of land in Sy.No.570. Here, it is the apt to note that when the map of Cherlapally Village-Ex.A_6 is confronted to R. W- i during her cross-examination, she admitted that the sale deed adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer is in respect of land situated more than three kilometers away from the acquired lands.

19. Thus, from the above, it is evident that though Exs.A_l and A-2 are sale deeds pertaining to pittampally Village, i.e., a different Village where the subject acquired lands are situated, in view of admission of R.W-1 regarding the distance between the acquired lands and the adopted sale deed pertaining to the same Village, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is fair and justifiable to take Exs'A-1 and A-2-sale deeds into consideration for determining the market value of the subject acquired lands. 9 AKS.J&LNA.J DuS.Nos 26 a 69 of 20 19

20. As regards Exs.A-3 and A-4-sale deeds, those are in respect of approved layouts, i.e., developed land, sold on yardage basis' whereas the subj ect acquired lands are agricultural lands' as admitted by the claimants themselves' As such, by any stretch of imagination, the market value reflected in E'xs'A-3 and A-4-sale deeds cannot be taken as yardstick for fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands based on them'

21. In the light of the above, it is clear that Cherlapally Village is a developed Village surrounded by residential colonies' commercial and educational establishments, etc., which in other words, discems the potentiality of the subject acquired lands lt has also come out in evidence that compared to Cherlapally Village, Pittampally is an interior Village to Nalgonda Headquarters' From all these aspects, this Court is of the considered view that Exs'A-1 andA-2-saledeedscanbetakenasexemplarsaledeedsforfixing the market value of the subj ect acquired lands'

22. Also, this Court observes that there is no quarrel with regard to the propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the 10 AKS,J&LNA.J LtuLS Nos 26 & 69 af20t9 claimants. The sum and substance of the aforesaid judgments has been duh, followed by the Reference Court in the instant case while lixing the rnarket value of the subject acquired lands.

23. In the light of the foregoing reasons, this Courl holds that the Land Acquisition Officer has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Further, the Reference cour1, taking into considcration the evidence placed befor.e it in pr.oper perspectivc, rightly fixed the market value ol the subject acquired lands, which calls for no interference by this Court and as such. both the Appeals are liable to be dismissed. 24

25. Accordingly, both the Appeals are dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. Note: A Typographical error occurred in the C.T. array of Respondent No. 20 is correcteb as" (Appellant No. 20 brought on record as LR of deceased Appellant No. 2 as per Court Order dated 21.02.2024 vide I.A. No. 1 of 2023 in LAAS No. 26 of 2019.)", the Respondent No. 20 glroql in the C.T. LAAS No. 69 of 201_9 is deleted from Array ol parties. This Amended Judgment ^ Copy Substitutes the 6adier order dispatched on 22.O7.2025. {o, '\- l sol- naono'. rsuAir_ DEPUTY REGISTRAR I SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda (with record s if any) ;+dF#;.e ,!-:.:.:*! .. :{:.,.. ..- ;i"

2. One CC to SRl. P RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to G.P. FOR APPEALS 4. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 i I l \ JUDGMENT LAAS.No.26 & 69 OF 2019 HES 1 I4 14At]B 0252 o O * * I I DISMISSING THE APPEALS b 1 Itt HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY LAND ACQ UISITION FIRST APPEAL NO : 26 OF 2019 Between:

1. Mandadi Ravinder Reddy' S/o. Linga Reddy, Ag-qd 51 Years' Occ Agriculture' RJo. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Drst '

2. Kasarla Kamalamma, Wo. Sathi Reddy, A99d.88 Years' Occ Agriculture' R/o' - Cherlapally Vitlage, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist , 3. Mandadi Shekar Reddy' S/o. Jan Reddy' Aged 54 Years' Occ Agriculture' - 4. Mandadi lvladhava Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Ag.e! 68 Years' Occ - AJi*rirt" nl/". bnedapattv Vitlage, Nalionda Mandal and Dist ' 5. Mandadi Jan Reddy, S/o. Narayana, Reddy, Aged.74 Years' Occ Agriculture' nyo- Cnedapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist , R/o. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist', nyo. Cnetiapa'tty viitage' Nalgonda Mandal and Dist

6. Mandadi Pariiatha, Wo. lndrasena Reddy, Aggd 51 Years' Occ Agriculture' - 7. t\ilandadi Pushpamma, Wo. Madhava Reqqy, . fS"9 ^?? Years' Occ ' ldiiJrrtrr", nyo 8. Sheera Chandraiah, S/o. Jangaiah, Aggd- 56 Years' Occ Agriculture' Rl/o Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist -chertabattv Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist

9. Mandadi Seshamma, W/o- Jan Reddy, Aged 64 Years' Occ Agriculture R/o' - lo.Gunna Linqa Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged 59 Years' Occ Agriculture' Cfreriapatty Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist ' R/o. Cherlapally Village' Nalgonda Mandal ano Dlst ' Redly' ng"-9 59 Years' Occ RiJ. Cnerlapally Villaie, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist'' X5ffilt'j;;,-Rv;. brrertapattrvittase, Nals6nda Mandal and Dist ' 1 'l . UoDala Madusudhan Reddy, S/o. Chalapathi ' ' 12. LJoDala Venkat Reddy, Sio. Matta Reddy, Age-Q 39 Years' Occ Agriculture' ' -' 1 3 uDoala Adi Reddv, S/o. Linga Reddy, Aged 49 Years' Occ Agriculture' R/o' - 14 t,ooala Ranoa Reddv' S/o. Linga Reddy, Aged 60 Years' Occ Agriculture R/o' Chbrlapally Villag6, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist , - Chbaapatty Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist '

15. Banda Mallaiah, S/o. Chandraiah, Age!-{! Years, Occ Agriculture' RJo' - Cnerlapatty Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist'' *;;a/ Chertapaily Viilage, Natgonda Mand;t a;dbi;i, '* "' '"- -'

16. Banda Narsimha, S/o, Chandraiah, Aged 54 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. 17. Panasa Saidulu, S/o. Ramulu, Aged 49 years, Occ Agriculture R/o. 18.Uppala Chandra Reddv. S/o. Gopal Reddy, Aged 54 years, Occ Agriculture, Cherlapatty Village, Natgonda tvtandaianO Oist R/o. Chertapaly Viilagd, Natgondi trrtunoil'dnd5[t- '1 9. Basireddy Sanje_eva Reddy,... S/o. Gopal Reddy, Aged 49 years, Occ Agricutture. R/o. Chertapaily Viilage, Na(onOa'tfi-n'daf Disi., 20. Kakarla Goutham Reddy, S/o Late Sathi Reddy, aged 54 years, g-cc; Agricutture, R/o Chertapatry Viil;s;, Gd#;56is"trict (Appeltant No. 20 brouoht on-recor-u isl'Coiti"lr""u Appeltant No. 2 19 o-eq ,cgurt order datEd zt.oz.ioz! viue-'r:A'G. i ot 2023 in LAAS No. 26 ot 201e.) ..appGr_laiibjpiilrronEn-srdlAiilANi5. 'a"nO AND The Special Deputy Collector.(LA), (Alimeneti Madhava Reddy) AMR proiect. Unit-tV, G V.Guberir, Nargonai '' ' - "...iiEsiijr,roEr,tiiiredicir,r6Eiii Appear fired under Section 54 0f the Land Acquisition Act, 1g94, against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda in L.A.O.p.No_g6 of 2014, dt.16.0s 201B. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the materiar papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of sri p. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and Government pleader for Appeals and for the Respondent. That this doth ordei and decree as follows: '1. That [his appeal be and here by is dismissed. 2. rhat this court whire dismissing the appear be and hereby confirmed afl the averments made by the lower court. 3. That there shall be no order as to costs SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR Note: A Typographical error occurred in^ the C.T. array of Respondent No. 20 is corrected as" (Appellant No. 20 brought on record as LR of deceased Appellant No.2 as per Court OrALi dated 21.02.2025 vide I.A. No. 1 of 2023 in LAAS No. 26 of 2019.)". .This Amended Judgment Copy Substitutes the eariier orOei dispatched on 22.07.2025. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1 . The Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. 2. Two CD Copies. HIGH GOURT DATED: 2110212025 DECREE LAAS No. 26 OF 2019 DISMISSING THE APPEAL 1 1\ $ HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIGE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANAALISHETry LAND AC UISITION FIRST APPEAL NO: 69 OF 2019 Between: The Special Deputy Collector (LA), (Alimeneti Madhava Reddy) AMR Project, Unit-lV, G.V.Gudem, Nalgonda. AppellanURespondent AND '1. Mandadi Ravinder Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, Aged 51 Years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist.,

2. Kasaria Kamalamma, Wo. Sathi Reddy, Aged 88 Years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist.,

3. Mandadi Shekar Reddy, S/o. Jan Reddy, Aged 54 Years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. Chedapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist.,

4. Mandadi Madhava Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Aged 68 Years, Occ Agriculture R:/o. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda lr/andal and Dist.,

5. Mandadi Jan Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Aged 74 Years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist.,

6. tvlandadi Parijatha, Wo. lndrasena Reddy, Aged 51 Years, Occ Agriculture, Rt/o. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist

7. Mandadi Pushpamma, W/o. Madhava Reddy, Aged 52 Years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o- Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist

8. Sheera Chandraiah, S/o. Jangaiah, Aged 56 Years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist

9. Mandadi Seshamma, Wo. Jan Reddy, Aged 64 Years, Occ Agriculture R/o. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist.,

10.Gunna Linga Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged 59 Years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist.,

11.Uppala Madusudhan Reddy, S/o. Chalapathi Reddy, Aged 59 Years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist.,

12. Uppala Venkat Reddy, S/o. Matta Reddy, Aged 39 Years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist.,

13.Uppala Adi Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, Aged 49 Years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist.,

14.Uppala Ranga Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, Aged 60 Years, Occ Agriculture Ryo. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal and Dist., .,-. ri<'.-.-'1--_-r'i 7 l.a

15. Banda Mallaiah, S/o. Chandraiah, Aged 49 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Cherlapalty Village, Nalgonda Mandal Ind Dist..

16. Banda Narsimha, S/o, Chandraiah, Aged 54 years, Occ Agriculturb, R/o. - Cherlaoally Village, Nalgonda Mandal a-nd Dist.,

17. Panasa Saidulu, S/o. Ramulu, Aged 49 years, Occ Agriculture R/o. Cherlapalty Village, Nalgonda Manda'i and Dist

18.Uppala Chandra Reddy, S/o. Gopal Reddy, Aged 54 years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandai and Dist., l9.Basireddy Sanjeeva,Reddy, S/o. .Gopal Reddy, Aged 49 years, Occ Agricutture, R/o. Chertapalty-Viilage, NatgonOa UiirOat End Oiit ,' Respondents/petitioners/Claimants Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda in L.A.O.p.No.g6 ot 2O1 4, dt.'1 6.08.20'l 8. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of lhe Lower court and the materiat papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Government preader for Appears for the appellants and Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents. That this doth order and decree as follows:

1. That this appeal be and here by is dismissed. 2. That this court while dismissing the appeal be and hereby confirmed all the averments made by the lower court.

3. That there shall be no order as to costs. Note: The Name of the Respondent No. 20, as wrongly shown in the C.T. LAAS No. 69 of 2019, dispatched on 22.01 .2025, is deleted from Array of parties. SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL D PUTY REG]STRAR To //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 . The Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda 2. Two CD Copies. W HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 DECREE LAAS.No. 69 OF 2019 DISMISSING THE APPEAL $