The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I TIIE HON,BLE SRI IUSTICE ABHINAND KUIvIAR SHAVILI i AND THE HON'BLE SMT.IUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.360 OE 2017 IUDGMENTI (l'cr I lon'blc Sri Justice Abhinand Kunrtrr Shavili) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), is filed by the Land Ar:quisition Officer aggrieved b), the judgment and decree, clated 29.()8.2012, rendered in L:A.O.P.No.9 of 2003 by the learned I Aclditional Disrrict Judge, Nizamabad (for short, 'the reference Court'). 2 Heard the learned Government Pleader for A -rpeals appearing for the appellant and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddv, learned counsel for the resporrdents.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals a.:pearing for the appellant had contendecl that land admeasurirrg Ac,1-22 guntas situated at Aloor Village of Armoor Mandal, Niz,imabad District, belonging to tl're respondents was acquired for the purpose of construction of High Level Bridge Armoor-Nandipet road, pursuant to the notification, dated 30.08.2001, issue,d uncler Section I I irrttlt rj&{r*da€}rr{lrt ..-'.}rYX 2 AI{S,J & L.A.A.S.No.360 of 2017 (1) of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to pass Award, dated 05.08.2002, fixing the market value of the subject land at Rs.12000/- per acre, based upon various Sale Deeds, which were executed during the relevant period of time. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation and the same was numbered as subject L.A.O.P.No.9 of 2003. The reference Court, aide impugned. judgment and decree, dated 29.08.2012, enhanced the market value of the subject land from Rs.17,000/- per acre to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for bagayat lands, Rs.75,000/ - per acre for single crop wet lands and Rs.50,000/ - per acre for dry lands, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellant

4. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant had further contended that the reference Court by relying upon G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 23.04.2002, enhanced the compensation for the subject land, but the said G.O. is not applicable to the subject land. The said G.O. was issued for the lands acquired for the j , t-. . 3 AKS,J & ETD,J L. A S.No.36O of 2017 purpose of r:onstruction of SRSP, Flood Flow Ca nal, wherein the State Government has fixed compensation for t.rc' lands coming under submergence of SRSP Flood Flow Canal, bu. not in respect of other lands. Therefore, appropriate orders be pas;ccl in tl're appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment arr,l dercree, dated

29.08.2012, and allow the appeal. 5 On the othcr hand, Iearned counsel for the rcspondents had contended that before the reference Court, RW.1 rvas examined on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer and he has atlmitted that in the subject land commercial crops were being ra isell anc'l that Velpur, Morthad, Armoor ancl Balkonda are adjitccr.rt Mandals. He had also admitted that SRSP Flood Flow Canal passes through Morthad and Kammarpally Mandals, and that for lhc. lanc'ls affected under the Flood Flow Canal, the Government has fixed the market value at Rs.1,45,000/- per acre for double crop wet rr ba1;ayat lands, Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for single crop wet lands anrl Rs.75,000/- per acre for dry iands. Based upon the admission maclc by RW.1 only, the reference Court has enhanced the market valrrc of the subject 4 AKS,J & L.A.A.S.No.360 of 2017 : l:i land and that the reference Court has not relied upon G.O.Ms.No.56, dated '23.04.2002. Learned counsel further contended that the reference Court has awarded less compensation than the amounts fixed in the aforesaid G.O. Therefore, there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that before the reference Court, RW.1, who was examined on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, had admitted that comrnercial crops were being raised in the vicinity of the subject land and that he had also admitted that the State Government has fixed an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- per acre for double crop wet lands, Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for single crop wet lands and Rs.75,000/- per acre for dry lands Therefore, basing upon the admission made by RW.1, the reference Court has enhanced the market value to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for bagayat lands, Rs.75,000/- per acre for single crop wet lands and Rs.50,000/- per acre for dry lands. Further, the total extent of land acquired was only Ac.1,-22 guntas, that too, from small time farmers 'I 5 AKS,J & ETD,J L.A.A.S.No.36O of 2017 like the respondents and that the difference of enl ancement is only Rs.84,600/-. Therefore, this Court is of the view lhat the reference Court was j,stified in enhancing the compensatic r.r for the subject land. Hen<:e, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree, dated 29.08.2072. 7 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pendinlS in this appeal shall stand closed SD\ K. SIIEE RAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REGISTRAR Ii SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, l.ThelAdditionalDistrictJudge,atNizamabad(withrecords'ifany) z. r*L cCs to Gp FOR APP"EALS, High court for the State of Telangana at 3. o;; CC to Sri G.'tvladhusudhan Reddy, Advocate [OPIJC] 4. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad. [OUT] kam/PSL w I I I i I l i I I I I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:0310312025 ( .'',) (.) JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.360 of 2017 DISMISSING OF THE APPEAL -rcoP(d &" ------:::=:\ :7r{E l)lAIij-:):\. - ; ..\:,. !:\''- \! 1 i SI:P ilf6 ,',; .a .-.''l' -1. '. -k , -*- t;.1, [ 3,+45 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Between: L.A.A.S.No: 360 of 2017 The Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. ...Appel lanUReferri ng Officer AND

1. Singidi Mahender, S/o. Singidi Mallaiah, Age: 25 years 2. Madgi Kothur Gangaram, S/o. Madgi Kothur Bajanna, Age: 40 years 3. Madgi Kothur Rajeshwar, S/o. Ch. Nallanna, Age: 36 years 4. Madgi Bhojanna, S/o. Bakkanna, Age: 50 years, (All are Agriculturists, R/o. Aloor Village, Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad District) ... Res pon dents/C la im ant Appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against the Judgment dated 29-08-2012 passed in O.P.No.9 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad. 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 case and upon hearing the arguments of GP FOR APPEALS for the Appellant and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed; and 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/- K. SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REGISTRAR i SECTION OFFICER I //TRUE COPYII To,

1. The I Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad 2. Two CD C;opies kam/PSL Yr' HIGH COURT DATED:0310312025 t i DECREE LAAS.No.360 of 2017 DISMISSING OF THE APPEAL \.t aoptel\ K.\- ail€tF