The High Court · 2025

Smt.S.Lingamma, w/o. late Jangaiah N/d. Rasheed, s/o. [\,4aqdoom Sm t. Nakka.Anasuya mma, w/o. An.laih Veera Reddy, s/o. Ram Reddy Anji Reddy, s/o. IValla Reddy L.Vittal Reddy s/o. Narayana Reddy L.Krishna Reddy, s/o. Narayana Reddy Vittal Reddy, s/o Butchi Reddy Bhoom Reddy. s/o. Ram Reddy L.Ranga Reddy, s/o. Krishna Reddy N IVIallaihs. S/o. Venkaiah Narasimhulu s/o. Venkaiah Muncherla.Lakshmaiah, s/o. [/luthaiah Narasimhulu, s/o. Pochaih l\ilanne. Potachaih, s/o. Lakshmaih IVlanne. Kistaih s/o. Lakshmaiah lvlanne. Sattaih, s/o. Lakshmaih Smt.Venkatamma. w/o. Mougulaih Sudarshan, s/o. late lvlogulaiah Narayana Reddy, s/o. Ram Reddy herein Respondents Nos 3 to 22 not necessary parties 14t"if ,"i8?Ji::l'.i3'fll'illil,;?"'..',.i'"'i;1"? lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to condone the delay of 5737 Days in filing A.S.No. of 2023. lA NO: 3 OF 2023 Petitron under sectron '151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 and 2 herein to provide alternative land as per proceedings dated 24.O1.1S95, 04,02.1995, 22-02.1595 and 20.12.1994 issued by the Respondents 1 and 2 forthwith or pay the present market value of the land by suspending the Decree and Judgment of the court below passed in O.P.NO 176 of 2007 on the file of lAddl. District Judge's Court, Sanga Reddy dated 28-2-2007 where the petitioners depriving their livelihood Counsel for the Appellants Counsel for the Respondent No 1 Counsel for the Respondent No 2 : : : Sri B Devadas GP for Appeals Sri L Prabhakar Reddy Standing Counsel for TSIIC The Court made the following Common Order : --- THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA I.A.No.2 of 2o23 IN/AND APPEAL SUIT No. 3OO of 2023 COMMON ORDER: This petition is filed to condone the delay of 5Z6g days in filing the appeal against the judgment dated passed in O.P.No. 176 of 2000 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

2. In the affldavit filed in support of the petitlon, the reasons stated for condoning the delay are that the respondents made a requisition for acquiring certain extents of lands for straightening of boundary of Export Promotion Industrial Park (EpIp), pashamilaram Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District and they acquired Ac.34.11 guntas in Sy.Nos.109 to 116, 14g and. 149 of Pashamailaram Village, patancheru Mandal. The petitioners and others are small farmers and illiterates and they have no other land except the land which is acquired by respondents. The Officers visited the site in the vear w 2 1994 and. gathered all the farmers ald made a proposal to provide alternate land in exchange of lands sought to be acquired. Accordingly they entered into an agreement and the Officers issued proceedings No.DW/D10/EPIP 194, dated 24.01.1995 and asked the respondent No.6 to send proposals for exchange of lands as communicated by the Chief General Manager. Thus, petitioners agreed for acquisition of their land.s' These proceedings were brought in their hands by way of I.A.No.911 of 2001 in O'P'No'176 of 2OO0 and the same was allowed. The Offrcers deviated the entire proceedings and issued 4(1) notihcation dated 24.02.1996 and they acquired their lands and they seriously objected the same. There was no proper advice given to them to approach this Court after confirmation of the award without recording proper evidence and thus there is a delay of 5768 daYs.

3. The award amount of Rs.7 lakhs is still lying in the District Court. The award was passed prior to the order of this Court on 09.09.1998. No enquiry was conducted by the authorities. I.A.No'9 1 1 of 2OO 1 was allowed on ---- 3

13.12.200I. During the pendency of the writ petition, there was reference under Section 31(2) by the respondents and the O.P was disposed on 28.O2.2OO7. Therefore, requested the Court to condone the delay.

4. In a counter Iiled by respondent No.2, he stated that I.A.No.2 of 2O23 is frled to condone the delay of more than L5 Yz years in hling the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.02 .2OO7 in O.p.No. lT6 of 20OO without any sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time is not maintainable in larv. Upon the requisition made by the then ApIIC for establishment of export, promotion industrial park at pashamailaram Village, Ac.34.00 gutnas was initiated by publishing Draft Notification dated O4.03.1996 and it was published on

06.03.1196 as early as on O9.01.1996 and the LAO passed the award in proceedings No.C/1026/1995, dated

09.09.1998 awarding a compensation of Rs.15,000/- per acre with statutory benehts. The necessary amounts were also deposited by the Corporation. There were disputes among the claimants and the matter was referred under 4 Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the I - Additional Districts Judge, Medak and it was numbered as O.P.No.176 of 2000 and the learned District Judge confirmed the award of the LAO dated o9.09.1998 on

28.02.2007.

5. He further stated that W.P.No.2O461 of 1996 is frled by M.Paramayya and 26 others challenging the notihcation was dismissed by this Court on 10.08.1999 but not disposed on 13.11.1998. W.P.No.10O69 of 2076 filed by present appellants questioning the acquisition proceedings and award of LAO dated 09.09.1998 after 2O long years from the date of publishing the Section 4(1) notification and 18 long years from the date of passing of award without any justification. There is no material placed by petitioners before the reference Court with regard to the exchange of land and petitioners are continuing in possession by cultivating and enjoying the same and the possession taken on 16.11.1998 is only paper possession are incorrect. Possession was taken on 16.11.1998 under cover of panchanama and mutation of the name of the --..- 5 Corporation was a-lso effected in the revenue records including Dharani. The acquired land was also developed and allotted to the entrepreneurs and constructed respective industries and also doing business. The LAO awarded a price of Rs.15,OOO/- per acre and it shows that the petitioners were not in possession, as such petitioners are not entitled for benefits under Sectio n 2ae\ of Act No.3O of 2013 for allotment of alternative lands in view of the acquired lands. The Five Bench of the Apex Court in Indore Deoeloprnent Authoritg Vs Manohar Lalt held. that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Act No.3O of 2013) is totally untenable and contrary to the law. I.A.No.3 of 2023 is beyond the scope of relief of appeal itself and not maintainable in law. Therefore, requested the Court to dismiss the application.

6. In a repiy affidavit frled by appellant No.l, he stated that a reference was made by LAO on the ground of receiving the compensation but not inter se dispute among 'zozo 1ay scc rze !q-F'. _ L-i:. 6 claimants. During the pendency of the writ petition, an award was passed by the LAO on 09.09.1998. The Writ Petition No.20461 of 1996 was disposed with a direction on

03.11.1998. There is an agreement between Respondent Corporation and appellants on the ground of alternate land proceedings issued on 20.12.1994 and 24.O1.1995, demarcation and survey was completed and the lald was yet to deliver to the appellants. In the meanwhile, notilication was issued on 24-02.1996 and appellants raised substantial issues. The appellants frled I.A'No'91 1 of 2OO 1 and the documents are very crucial, the application was allowed. In the mealwhile, the award was confirmed on 28.02.2OO7, as such the purpose of filing the I.A.No.911 of 2OO1 was defeated. Therefore, requested the Court to allow the apPlication. 7 . A reference was made under Section 3 1 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act as there were disputes among the claimants but refused the compensation amount awarded' The trial Court observed that no documents are Iiled by the petitioners regarding alternative lands to them and 7 accordingly confirmed the award of the LAO dated

09.09.1998 on 28.O2.2OO2. LA.No.911 of 200i was filed before the trial Court for summoning certain documents regarding the alternative lands and it was allowed on 13.I2.2OO7. It is stated by the petitioners that suit is disposed of without receiving the documents and thus the purpose of {iling of LA.No.91l of 2OOl was defeated. The I.A. was allowed in the yeat 2OOI and the award was confirmed in the year 2OO7. The possession of the claimants was protected as per the corresponden<;e dated 20.12.1994. It was clearly mentioned that claimants prepared to give lald in exchange of equal land from out of the lands ear-marked for housing purpose abutting to Pashamailaram Vi1lage. They further stated that they do not require any monetary compensation for the land they would give to the Corporation. In a letter dated 04.02.1995 addressed to the Chief General Manager, ApIIC Limited, it was mentioned that 'the land u_thich tue haue enuisaged- to be giuen to the pattedars in exchange for proposed. acquisition of land for straightening of bound.ary of EpUIp, is 8 a leueled land abuttinq to the Pashamailaram Village and the soils structure is fantostic for construction purpose."

8. A perusal of the said correspondence clearly shows that they agreed for exchange of the land to the pattedars herein. In O.P., 28 claimants are there and out of them eight (O8) claimants preferred this appeal i.e., claimant Nos.3, 4, 6,7, lO, 13, 17 and 24 and the remaining claimants are added as respondent Nos.3 to 22. It is a peculiar case in which the Corporation intended to take over the land of the farmers from the beginning for developing and for setting industry. From the beginning, the claimants/farmers clearly state that they want alternative land but not monetary compensation, even then the LAO fixed up the compensation @ 15,000/- per acre. Though alternative land was identified and when it is about to give to them, Government issued 4 (I) notification and deprived them of alternative land. They approached this Court through Writ Petitions and the reference was also made against the award of the LAo to the I Additional District Judge and it was observed by the trial Court that 9 the correspondence regarding alternative equal land was not filed b1, the claimants and thus they are only entitled for compensation. In fact they f ed the I.A. to summon the documents and it was allowed way back in the year 2001, but without taking necessary steps to get the documents, disposed of the O.p and thus the disposal of thc: O.p is patently erroneous. No doubt, the petitioners herein preferred the appeal but approached the Court with a delay of more than 15 yz years and they stated that they are poor farmers and there was no advise for them to approach this Court, but they aiready approached this Court by way of Writ Petitions as such the contention that they have no knowledge to prefer an appeal cannot be accepted. However, technicalities should not defeat the deserving remedy to the petitioners herein. They relied upon judgment reported in Mohammed. Abduflah (Died) Vs. Land Acquisition (General), Hgd.erabad.z. In this case, the matter was preferred after 13 years of passing of the award and the delay was condoned and the matter was 2 tqgs + al-o s68 l0 remanded back to make enquiry by providing opportunity to both the sides. -F g . This Court finds that it is just and reasonable to condone the abnormal delay of 15 /z yeats on costs of Rs.2O,OOO/- to be paid by the petitioners to the District Legal Services Authority, Medak at Sangareddy within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order'

10. The matter is remanded back to the I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy with a specific direction to summon the documents in I.A.No'911 of 2OO1 and to dispose of the O.P. by duly giving an opportunity to both sides and on hearing both sides within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' Both the parties and counsels are directed to cooperate with the Court for disposal of the same within the stipulate time' Registry is directed to send the record along with copy of the order to the Said Court within 10 days from the date of this Order. I1 1 1 . Consequently, the Appeat Suit is disposed of. No order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR \\ #. TION OFFICER NOTE : As per Common Order dated 24-01-2025, Rs 20,000/- is to be paid by the Petitioners to the District Legal Services Authority, IVledak at Sangareddy withrn one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. I ,l To, 1 2 |) 4 o The lAdditjonal District Judge, IVIedak at Sangareddy The District Legal Services Authority, Medak at Sangareddy Two CCs tp.!l,S.-9p for Appeats, High Court for the State of Tetangana, Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri L Prabhakar Reddy, Standing Counsel for TSIIC tOpUCl One CC to Sri B Devadas, Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copres Vtugh HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 COMMON ORDER LA.No.2 of 2023 in / and AS.No.300 of 2023 z -:l'ttt \ ,t 7), ,i , o i,' t 0 : itB ?ues oi spa ALLOWING THE I.A. ON COSTS & DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SUIT AA t{ 1