High Court · 2025

Counset for the Appeflant(s) : SRI. V VENUGOPALA RAO Sru?* 3;,ii::,["""P"lttilt -2 : sRr p' sRr HARSHA REooy, standins counser ror The Court delivered the following: JUOGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.636 of20ll JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Deui Eada) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act' 1894, (for short'the ActJ is preferred by the appellants - claimants' aggrievecl by the order and decree dated 3O'12'2OO} passed in O.P.No.87B of 2OO7 by the learned 1"t Additional District Judge at Khammam (hereinafter referred to as'the Reference Court)' 2- For convenience ald clarity, the parties herein are referred to as thev were arrayed before the Reference Court'

3. The lacts of the case in brief are that based on the requisition made by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited' General Manager, Kothagudem Area, the lands to an extent of Ac.Ol-3O guntas in survey No.165/1/AI Dry and an extent of Ac.O2 13 guntas in survey No.20O/AA dry, in :r11 an extent of Ac.O4-03 guntas have been acquired' A draft notification under Scction 4(1) of the AcCwas published in newspaper on 17 'O4'2OO4 and 18.04.2004. After conducting due enquiry' the Land Acquisition Olhcer (LAO) has awarded Rs'72,000/- per acre inclucling statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said award' the 2 AKS,] & ETD,] IAAS 636 2011 claimants have I ed a petition for reference and the same was referred under Section lg(1) of the Act to the Court of l"t Additional District Judge, Khammam

4. The case of the claimants is that they are the agriculturists and that due to acquisition, they lost their livelihood and that Lheir lands would fetch much more value as it has high potential for development and that the LAO has awarded very meager amounL towards compensation and that their lalds are very fertile yielding commercial crops and the.lands in the vicinity are sold at higher rates and are suitable for house sites.

5. The Reference Court has framed the following point for consideration: "Whether the market value frxed by the Special Deputy Collector (LA) IpT & RLYS, Khammam i" "i"q""[a" 6. The said Op was taken up along with a batch of claims arising out of the said acquisition. Therefore, a joint trial was held in all these cases. ,L 7 . At the time of trial, the claimants got examined pWs I to 1 1 and Exs.Al to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.Bl to B12 were marked. 3 AKS,J & EID,I LAAS 636 2011

8. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.72,00O/ - per acre to Rs. 1,47,60O/ - per acre and also granted solatium at 3Oo/o, additional market value at l2o/o and interest at 9ok per annum from

24.O8.2OO4 trll the date of the order, thereafter at 60/o per annum, till the date of payment of compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appe al is frled by the claimants g. Heard the submissions of Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the reference Court has failed to consider the sale deed relating to the transactions for a sum of Rs.7,98,60O/- in survey Nos 165 and

1.67, Ex.A6 relates to the said transaction and the vendee of Ex'A6 was also examined as PW1O, the reference Court has committed an error in not considering lhe said evidence on record' That the reference Court failed to observe that the land belonging to the claimants is in a prime locality adjacent to the State Highway leading from Visakhapatnam to Hyderabad and it also situated at a distance ol ll KM from Sathupallv town. He further argued that Exs.,i7 errd A8 reflect the market value to be more than Rs.7 Lakhs per acre which were registered based on a basic value register at 4 AKS,] & ETD,] LAAS 636 2011 *-!t SRO Office, Sathupally, but still the same were not considered by the reference Court. He further argued that the interest as per the statute is also not gralted from the date on which the possession had been taken. 1 1. The learned Government pleader has submitted that the reference Court has given a very reasoned order and that there is no need to interfere with the same, the said high value as argued by the claimants counsel is for a non-agricultural land but the present acquisition is of an agricultural land and that too the saicl sale deeds pertain to lands which are located in different survey numbers and are far away from the acquired lands. Hence, the same cannot be applied to the present case. He therefore, prayed to uphold the order ald decree of the reference Court by dismissing the appeal.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: I 2 Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? ,L Whether the order and decree of the reference Court need any interference?

3. To what relieP 5 AKS,I & ETD,J LAAs 636 2011

13. POINT NO.1: a) The claimants are aggrieved by the compensation granted by the reference Court and that their lands fetch more value as elicited from IIxs.A2 to A8. A perusal of the said sale deeds reveals that Exs.A7 and A8 pertain to 29'O8 20O5 which are subsequent to the acquisition, hence, they cannot be considered' While Exs A2 to A6 reveal that they are the sale deeds of lands in small extents sold on yardage basis, hence, the same are not relied upon by the reference Court, which appears to be justiiled' b) However, from a perusal of the evidence of RWf it ts revealed that some of the land losers in the present acquisition have made applications to pass consent award under Section 11(2) of the Act and thus, the LAO has considered their representations and passed a consent award granting a compensation of Rs.1,47,60O/- per acre as lump sum award including all the statutory benefits. The said offer was also made to the present claimants but they did not agree for the said compensation' as such RW1 has conducted enquiry and passed the award fixing the market value @ Rs.72:Oo0/- per acre' It is further elicited from RW 1 that the sales transactions c) relied upon by the claimants pertain to small extents of land hencc, the same were not taken into consideration' It is further 6 AKs,J & ETD,J IAAS 636 2011 't elicited from her that the District Level Negotiation committee has offered the compensation at Rs. 1,47,600/_ per acre. Thus, it is elicited from RWl that Rs. 1,47,6O0/_ per acre is the market value of the present land as on the date of acquisition. A perusal of award copy under Ex.B1 also substantiates the evidence given by RWi d) Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Krishan Kurnar a. Ilnion of Ind.ia and anotherl and the principre raid down in the said case is that when the lald is acquired for coal excavation, 1/3.d deduction is held to be improper. But in the present case on hand, an amount of per acre was awarded by the reference Court in consent with regard to other claimants, when the claimants approached the reference court, the same principle has been applied and Rs. 1,47,600/- is awarded, hence, the said decision is not applicable to the present case Rs. i,47,600/- e) In the absence of any convincing evidence lead by the claimants with regard to the higher market value, the reference Court has taken into consideration the value hxed in the consent award and has awarded the same in the present case also. The reference Court has also awarded the statutory benefits i.e. '1zors; rs scc zzo 7 AKS,] & ETD,I LAAS 635 2011 solatiumat3O%,additionalmarketvalueatL2%oandinterestat 9o/operannumfronl24.oS.2oo4tillthedateoftheorder,thereafter at 6oh per annum till the date of payment of compensation' Therefore, it is held that the claimants are not entitled to any fuither enhancement. Point No.1 is answered accordingiy' l4 POINT NO.2: The reference Court has awarded additional market value @72oh from 21.O8.2OO4 but it is settled law that l2o/o per annum has to be awarded on the enhanced amount from the date of notification titl the date of award and further, the claimants are entitled to the interest @9o/o per annum from the date of dispossession for the first one year and thereafter @15%o per annum till the date of realization. 'lherefore, the order and decree, d,ated 3O.L2.2O09 passed in O P.Nc'.878 of 2OO7 by the learned l"t Additional District Judge at Khammam need to be modihed with regard to the additional markel value and the interest' The Reference Court has awarded l2o/o of additional market value from

24.Oa.2OO4 till the date of order, which is not tenable in the eye of law. Hence, it is held ttrat the clairnants are entitled for additional market value @l2o/o per annum under Section 23( 1-A) of the Act on the enhancecl amount from thc date of notification till the date of award. The claimants are also entitled to the interest @9oh per 8 AK5,J & ETD,] LAAS_636_2011 .1 annum from the date of dispossession for the thereafter tS% per annum dll the date of realiza answered accordingly. first one year anrj tion. Point No.2 is

15. POINTNo.3: In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the order and decree, dated 30. 12.2OOg passed in O.p.No.B7g of 2OOZ by the learned l"t Additional District Judge at Khammam, to the extent of additional market value and the rate of interest i.e. the claimants are entitled to additional market vatue @ 72%o per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the act on the enhanced compensation from the date of notification til the date of award and with regard to the interest, the claimants are entitled to the interest on the enhanced compensation including solatium from the date of dispossess ion @ 9%o per annum for the first one year and thereafte r @1 71o/o till the date of realization. The remaining order as to Lhe compensadon awarded.by the reference Court, shall stand confirmed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed ! //TRUE COPY// '"^"[i^T+XEt?+[13 SE OFFICER To,

1. The tAdditionat District Judge, Khammam 2. One CC to SRt. V VENUG 3. one cc to sri p. sri n"r"n,o"o* 4. Two cD copies (# RAo Advocate lopuc] I Reddy' standing counser for singareni cofieries co. Ltd HIGH COURT DATED:01 10812025 11E STA s oI I 2 5 Lu$ 2[?5 G) )s * ,)r:r JUDGMENT LAAS.No.636 of 2011 II L PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL 6 ( L\ ,.-. )J IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD . FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA LAND ACOUI stTION FIRST AP PEAL NO: 636 OF 2011 Between Village of Sathu[aily Mandat, Kha;';am D;fi;i '""-'' ' I Puchakavara Java Chandhra Reddy,, s/o.Laxma Reddy, Agricurture (died) R/o. Kistaram e fir"**:{l,rr.*:'H,l;#,,;.."rra Reddy, Housewife R/o. Kisraram viilase of sathupaly g. P.u.chakayara seethamaraxmi,, . wo. Jaya chandhra Reddy, Housewrfe R/o. Kistaram d Yetkati Nirupa., Wo. Venkalqswara Reddy, Housewife R/o. Kistaram Viflage of , Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District- $l luchakayala Laxma Reddy @ Laxman Rao,, S/o. Jaya Chandhra Reddy. Agricutturist Village of Sathupalty Mandat, knammam Oisiiict. -' - *' R/o. Kistaram Vi age of Saihula y Mandat,-Kiiamr"-r-'dl"tr,"t. AND ...APPELLANTS/Ctaimants {. The Speciat Deputy Coltector (LA), lpT and Rtys. Khammam. A li:ffflff:eral lvlanaser,, singareni coilieries Company Limited, Kothasudem, ...RESPONDENTS Appear fired under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act R/w section 96 of cpc., aggrieved by the orders passed by the Hon'bre r Additionar District Judge, at Khammam in L A-o.P.No.87B of 2007 daled 30.12.2009 (ord LAop.No.47 of 2oos on the f e of the senior Civil Judge, Sathupatfy). L ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds ofappeal, the Judgment and Decree ofthe Lower court and the material papers in the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. venugopar Rao, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri p. Sri Harsha Reddy, Standing counsel for the Siga Reni collieries co. Ltd. for the Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That this appeal be and hereby is partly altowed by modifying the order and decree ol the Lower Courl-

2. That the claimants are entitled to additionat market value @ 12V" per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of notihcation till the date of award'

3. That the claimants are entitled to the interest on the enhanced compensation including solatium from the date of dispossession @ 97o per amum for the hrst one year and thereafter @ 15o/o lill the date of realization'

4. That save as albresaid, the decree of the lower court be and hereby is confirmed in all other respects.

5. That there shall be no order as to costs. 1/Teutr co(/,// SD/. K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR J'erCTt NO tr)L4-; To

1. The I Additional l)istrict Judge, KhammzFl 2. Two CD Copies. (,+ I HIGH COURT DATED:0110812025 DECREE LAAS.No.636 of 2011 I PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL (t y) s.t) ?t