The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T. NARSA REDDY The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHIXAND XI'UAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUUALA DPVI EADA L.A.A. S.No.682 of 2O11 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smt. Jtl.sti@ Tirumaia Deui Eada) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer, SRSP, Pochampad, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.04.1999 passed in O.P.No.610 of 1991 by the learned Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (hereinaiter referred to as the reference Court').

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the reference Court.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the Executive Engineer, I & CAD (PW) Department, Sriramsagar Project, Pochampad has filed requisition for acquiring certain agricultural lands from Vamcha Village, Navipet Mandal, Nizamabad Ditrict for submergence under the Sriramsagar Project. An extent of Ac.l7-O4 zuntas of land has been acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer. A draft notihcation under Section a(1) and 6 of the Act was publhhed in AP GazeLte on 24.01.1991 and 25.01. 199 I respectivel-v-, and was published in English daily newspaper on \ 2 A,KsJ & ETDJ LAAS No.682_2011

18.02.1991 and Telugu daity newspaper on 19.O2.1991. The I^and. Acquisition Officer has passed award granting a compensation of Rs.8,O00/- per acre, as market value for dry lands under acquisition. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have made an application for reference and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the reference Court.

4. The reference Court has framed the foliowing issues for eonsideration I Whether the compensation awarded by the L.A.O. is inadequate and unreasonable? .) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

3. Tc, what relieP"

5. To prove their case, the claimants got examined three witnesses (RWs I to 3) and gor marked Dxs.Bl and 82. The Land Acquisition Offrcer has not adduced any evidence.

6. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 17,OOO/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred the present appeal. / 3 AKS,J & ETDJ LAAS No.682 2011 7 . Heard the submissions of learned Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri T.Narsa Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. karned appellant counsel has submitted that the reference

8. Court ought not to have enhanced any compensation to the claimants and that the claimants have placed wrong documents before the reference Curt and the reference court has grossly erred in relying upon Exs.Bl and 82. He further submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has f-xed the compensation based on the various sale instances gathered during the award enquiry and therefore, the reference Court ought to have confrrmed the same, instead of enhancing the compensation, he thus, prayed to set aside the award passed by the reference Court by allowing this appeal.

9. The learned respondents counsel has argued that the reference Court has properly examined the evidence on record and has rightly granted the enhanced compensation, he therefore, prayed this Court to confirm the award passed by the reference Court by dismissing the appeal.

10. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: / 4 AXSJ & ETD,.' I-AAS No.682 2011 1 2 Whether the claimants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation? Whether the judgment and decree of the reference Court need any interference?

3. To what relief? I1. POINT NO.1: a) RWI is a claimant and his evidence reveals that he is one of the claimants in O.P.No.8l of 1989 which was liled pursuant to the acquisition of land for the purpose of railway bridge and that he was awarded Rs.17,O00/- per acre. Ex.B I filed by him is the certified copy of the said award. That their acquired lands are abutting the road and are prone for development and that the lands fetch more thal Rs.9O,OOO/- per acre. He further deposed that the lands at Binola village were also acquired for the same purpose and they were awarded Rs.3.5,OOO/ _ per acre and tJlat their lands are more fertile than the lands of Binola village. b) The evidence of RW2 reveais thar he is the resident of Binola and that their lands were acquired under submergence of SRSp project and that the [a.nd Acquisition Olficer has awarded Rs.3,000/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.7,5OO/- per acre for wet lands but the reference Court has awarded an enhanct:d amount of Rs.17,0O0/- for dry lands arrd Rs. l9,O0O/- for wer lands, over which they have preferred an appeal and the Higtr Court has I \ 5 AKSJ & IIOJ I-AAS No.682_2011 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 18,0O0/- for dry lands and Rs.20,0O0/- for wet lands- He also filed Ex'B2 i'e' certified copy of order in O.P.No.195 of 1989 and that he is the claimant No'21 in the said OP. c) RW3 is the resident of Yamcha and his land was also submerged under the SRSP project. He is the claimant No'6 in the present OP and deposed that he used to raise double crop paddy in the acquired larrd. d) The evidence of these witnesses cannot be dislodged as there is no rebuttal evidence by Lhe respondents' e) A perusa-l of Exs.Bl and E}2 establish the said fact as deposed by the witnesses i.e. RWs I ar'd 2' f) Ex.Bl reveals that it is thc order d'ated 23'12'1992 passed in O.P.No.8 1 of 1989 by the learned Additional Distri'ct Judge' Nizamabad, wherein the land was acquired for the purpose of approach road to the bridge across river Godavari and the Larrd Acquisition Officer has granted a compensation of Rs' 17,OOO/- per acre.OnreferencetothelearnedAdditionalDistrictJudge,the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs'fi,OOOl- \--per'lcre. / I 6 AXSJ & ETD,J LAAS No.682 2011 r\ d A perusal of Ex.B2 reveals that it is the order passed in O.P.No.195 of 1989 by the Additional District Judge, Nizamabad on 13.11.i99 1, wherein the land was acquired for Sriramsagar Project and the l,and Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.7,50O/- per acre for wet lands and Rs.3,0O0/- per acre for drJ, lands. On being referred by the Larrd Acquisition Officer, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 17,OOO / - for dry lands and Rs.19,OOO/- per acr€ for wct [an-de. h) Thus, the claimants could prove their case that their acquired lands fetch more value and that the compensation awarded by the land Acquisition Officer is v('ry meager. Considering the evidence on tl.e record, it is held that the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs. 17,OOO/- per acre as granted by tlre reference Court. Therefore, the refr:rence Court was justified in enhancing the compensation to Rs. 1 7,000/ - per acre. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

12. PTOINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned finding arrived at Point No.l, this Court holds that the judgment and decree of the reference Court do not need any interference. 7 AKS,J & ETDJ LAAs No.682_2011

13. POINT I{O.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the judgment and decree dated 13.O4.1999 passed in O.P.No.61O of 1991 by the learned Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO OINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. The Additional District Judge, Nizamabad 2. Two CCs to the G.P. for Appeals, State of Telanga na. High Court Buildings at Hyderabad[OUTI

3. One CC to Sri T. Narsa Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies PIp/gh w To, i 1 HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 JUDGMENT+DECREE (2 drafls) C Hts o C) t$ ruN 1t6 't; il) LAAS.No.682 ot 2011 |{ DISMISSING HE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS. 110(ua \+ aN\a-, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 682 OF 2011 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, S.R.S.P., Pochampad. ...APPELLANT/REFERRING OFFICER AND 'l Smt. Rajubai,, Wo.Linganna 2 Chandani Raianna, S/o.Lasmanna (DIED) 3 Chandani Rajanna, S/o.Muthanna 4. Gangadhar,, S/o.Maikanna 5. Sala Venkati,, S/o.Gangaram (died) 6 Pentaiah. S/o.Malkaiah (died) 7 Gangadhar, S/o Malkaiah (died) 8 Putti Muthanna, S/o.Babanna (died) 9 Boigam Narsubai, Wo.Rajalingam (died) '10 Satya Goud,, S/o.Lingagoud (died) 11 Yadagoud., S/o.Naragoud (died) 12.V anjan Gangadhar, S/o.Rajaram 13 Vanlari Bhumaiah, S/o.Nadpi Perraji 1 4.V anlart Gangadhar, S/o.Rajaram '15. Smt. Shakuntala Bai, Wio.Hanmanth Rao All are R/o.Yamcha (V), Navipet (M), Nizamabad District.

16.Gangu Bai, Wo Chandani Rajaiah, age 70 years .17 Pedda Gangadhar, S/o. Chandani Rajaiah, age 50 years 18 Chinna Gangadhar, S/o. Chandani Rajaiah, age 45 years 19 Sala Gangadhar, S/o. Sala Venkati 20. Sarasathi Wo Shala Gangadhar 21 . Pandu. S/o. Shala Gangadhar, 22.Padma. Wo. Charan 23 Cheran. S/o Gangadhar 24 Boddu Ravi, S/o. Ra.ianna adopted S/o. of Putti Muthenna 25.Bejam Sudarshan s/o. Bejam Narsu Bai 26. Pentavva w/o. Satyagoud 27 Lingam Goud. S/o. Satyagoud 28 lvlahesh Goud, S/o. Satyagoud 29. Mona Bai, Wo. Pentaiah / /

30. Balamani Wo. Yada Goud AII are R/o. Yamcha Village Navipet mandal, Nizamabad District Respondent Nos.16 to 30 are brought on record as per the orders of the Honble Court dated 23.06.2011 and made in LAAS.MP. Nos.1030/11, 1 220 I 1 1, 1 0 1 5 t20 1 1, 1 226 120 1 1, 1 08 t 20 1 1, 1 229 120 1 1, 1 223 120 1 1 and 102712011 ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 54 of L.A. Act of 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 13.04 1999 passed in O.P.No.610 of 1991 on the file of the court of the Additional District Judge, Nizamabad This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of G.P. for Appeals, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri T. Narsa Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the Land Acquisition Appeal Suit be and hereby is dismissed upholding the judgment and decree dated 1 3 04 1999 passed in O.P.No.610 of '1991 by the learned Additional District Judge, Nizamabad; and 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JP INT REGISTRAR S CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Additional District Judge. Nizamabad, 2. Two CCs to the G P for Appeals, State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at HyderabadIOUT] 3. Two CD Copies w (2 drafts) HIGH COURT DATED:27102t2025 DECREE LAAS.No.682, of 2011 DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS. G ..6n4 fri,,