The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay the execution of the judgment and decree Dated 29.08.2017 passed in O.p.No.67 of 2005 by the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. Counselfor the Appellant : counsel for the Respondents 2 to 5 & 7 to 11 : sRt J. SURESH BABU The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT GP FOR APPEALS r, HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA S.No.56 of 2019 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short'the Act') is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer, RDO, Nalgonda, aggrieved by the order and decree dated

29.08.2017 passed in LAOP No.67 OF 2005 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court')

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

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the Government has acquired 3090 Sq.yards at Cherlapally village for forming bypass road from Narketpalli to Addanki. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) has awarded a compensation of Rs.15,400/- per acre, apart from the other statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have filed a petition for reference and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda : l i i i t I I i 2 AKS,J & ETD,J I..AAS. s6_2019

4. The case of the claimants is that their lands would fetch more than Rs.2,000/- per sq.yard as the prevailing market value rate is at Rs.2,000/- per square yard in the locality and that their rand has high potential for development, that it is abutting the road leading from Nalgonda to Hyderabad rheir land is suitable for house sites and there is heavy demand for land for establishing industries. lt is their further case that a housing colony is also situated by the side of acquired land and hence, they sought for enhancement of compensation.

5. The Reference court has framed the following poirrt for consideration. "Vrihether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation at the rate claimed in the statement?"

6. At the time of trial, the claim petitioners got examined pws 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 , P2 and X1 and X2. on beharf of the respondent, no witness was examined and no documents were marked.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the reference court has enhanced the ccmpensation to Rs.1oo/- per square yard, apart > \ Jl C, 3 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS_s6_2019 from the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the LAO has preferred the present appeal.

8. Heard the submissions of learned Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri J.Suresh Babu, learned counsel for the respondents

9. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the reference Court has enhanced the compensation without there being any basis. He further argued that the reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation payable in respect of the acquired land, which is 30 times more than that is granted by the LAO and the same is highly excessive. He further contendbd that the sale deeds i.e. Exs.P1 and P2 are not at all comparable to the land acquired either in potentiality or extent, therefore, he prayed to set aside the same

10. The learned respondent counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the lands of the claimants would fetch more in the locality and that their land has high potential for development and that it is abutting the road leading from Nalgonda to Hyderabad. He furtheF@ued that the land is suitable for house sites and there is heavy demand for land for establishing industries and hence, they 4 AKS,J & ETD,J r..AAS_56_2019 sought for enhancement of compensation. He further argued that the reference court failed to see that in survey No.84, the land was acquired for the same purpose and it was fixed at Rs.300/- per square yard but the reference court has failed to award the same.

11. considering the above rival contentions, this court frames the following points for consideration: 1 2 Whether the compensation granted by the reference Court is just and reasonable? Whether the order and decree of the reference Court need any interference?

3. To what relief?

12. POTNT NO.1: a) The contention of the appellant is that the reference court has enhanced the compensation by thirty times without any basis. b) lt is the grievance of the claimants that in survey No.B4, the land was acquired for the same purpose and it was fixed at Rs.300/- per square yard but the reference court has failed to award the same :i d--' f- I r\ 5 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS_56_2019 c) A perusal of the award copy of the LAO under Ex.X1 reveals that he has discarded several sale deeds on the ground that some lands are far away from the acquired land and other lands are located in different survey numbers. PW2 has admitted that the land in survey No.84 is adjacent to the present land under acquisition. Ex.X1 pertains to the land acquired at Cherlapalli, while Ex.X2 pertains to the award passed in respect of the land acquired at Marrigudem d) A perusal of Ex.X2 shows that the LAO has passed the award by negotiating with the claimants and after settlement with the land holders and interested persons, the government has entered into an agreement and fixed the compensation @ Rs.300/- per square yard for the lands in survey No.B4 and Rs.70/- per square yard for the lands in survey Nos.85 and 86, by deducting 53% on market value, the compensation was fixed at Rs.141l- per square yard for the land in survey No.B4, Rs.32.90/- per square yard in survey Nos.85 and 86. Thus, neither the capitalization method nor comparable sales method was foliowed by the LAO while passing the award under Ex.X2. Thus, it is eticited that on negotiation, the award was passed on yardage basis in survey No.B4 under Ex.X2, while it was fixed as Rs.15,4OOt- per acre in tlre -?i I 6 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS_56 2019 present case. when the acquisition is with regard to the adjacent lands, such a discrepancy in the compensation is not just and proper. e) The documents under Exs.p1 and p2 are the sate deeds which disclose that the prevailing market value in the locality is much higher than the compensation fixed by the LAo. ln Ex.p1 the property in survey No.84 was sord @ Rs.g00/- per square yard, while under Ex.PZ. the land was sold at Rs.950t- per square yard in survey No.B4. considering the difference in prices between survey Nos.B4, 85 and 86 and also considering the fact that the land acquired is adjacent to survey No.B4, the reference court has awarded Rs.100/- per square yard, which is just and reasonable. 0 Therefore, when the adjacent rand is awarded compensation on yardage basis, it would be just and reasonable to award on the same basis to the present acquisition also. Thus, considering the evidence on record, the reference court has awarded Rs.100/- per square yard, apart from statutory benefits, which is found to be just and reasonable. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. ._.. , I 7 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS_56 2019 (

13. POINT NO.2: ln view of the reasoned finding arrived at Point No.1, this Court holds that the order and decree of the reference Court do not need any interference

14. PO|NT NO.3: ln the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order and decree dated 29.08.2017 passed in LAOP No.67 OF 2005 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda. No costs lMrscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. (With records, if any) 2. One CC to SRl. GP FOR APPEALS (TG) Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. J. SURESH BABU, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:2910912025 \ A[rE tt$5 tir"t 11 * 't.:' ..-(l JUDGMENT LAAS.No.56 of 2019 DISMISSING THE APPEAL t \ 'NA / IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWEN:TY NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE - - PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA LAND AGQUISITION FIRST APPEAL NO: 56 OF 2019 Between The Land Acquisition Officer, R.D.O., Nalgonda AND APPELLANT

1. Kondakindi Sadasiva Reddy, S/o.Lachi Reddy, Age not known, R/o.Cherlapally Village of Nalgonda Mandal and District

2. Anthati Yadaiah, S/o.Buchi Ramulu, R/o.Cherlapally Village of Nalgonda Mandaland District

3. Guntoju Panduranga Chary, S/o.Narayana, R/o.Cherlapally Village of Nalgonda Mandal and Distric

4. Baddam Ramulu, S/o.Lingaiah, R/o.Cherlapally Village of Nalgonda Mandaland District

5. Akavaram Shambu Prasad, S/o.Thwasta Chary, R/o.Cherlapally Village of Nalgonda Mandal and District

6. Pisike Pandari, S/o.Seetha Ramulu, R/o.Cherlapally Village of Nalgonda Mandaland District

7. Rapolu Devkamma, Wo.Yadagiri, R/o.Cherlapally Village of Nalgonda Mandaland District

8. Musku Anuradha, W/o.Anantha Reddy, R/o.Cherlapally Village of Nalgonda Mandal and District

9. Meka Pedda Malla Reddy, S/o.Sura Reddy, R/o.Cherlapally Village of Nalgonda Mandal and District

10. Meka China Matla Reddy, S/o.Sura Reddy, R/o.Cherlapally Village of Nalgonda Mandal and District

11. Gopireddy Neelamma, Wo.Krishna Reddy, R/o.Cherlapally Village of Nalgonda Mandal and District 1 2. Basani Venkatesh, S/o.Ramachandraiah, R/o.Cherlapally Village of Nalgonda Mandal and District 1 3. P_abbathireddy Ve.nkg! Reddy, S/gr,Raja Malla Reddy, R/o. Chertapally

14. Utkuri Bhupathi Reddy, S/o.Dharma Reddy, R/o.cherrapaily Viilage of Nalgonda Mandal and District Appeat fited under Section s4 of the Land o"or,r,:="t::T]t:: against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.08.2017, passed in OP.No.6T of 2OOS on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Government Pleader for the Appellant and of Sri J. suresh Babu, Advocate for the Respondents. That this Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That this Appeal is be hereby dismissed upholding the order and Decree dt.29.08.2017 passed in LAop.No.67 of 2005 by the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgoda.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/. A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. 2. Two CD Copies. \ HIGH COURT DATED:2910812025 JUDGMENT LAAS.No.56 of 2019 DISMISSING THE APPEAL \ \\