The High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. J.

9. N.Purusha Ramulu [Died], Per LRs 5 and 6 Thota Jangaiah (Died), Per LRs 10 to 13 Thota Laxmaiah, S/o.Yellaiah, R/o-Amangal. Thota Chinna Ramaswamy (Died), Per LRs 19 and 20 Pentaiah S/o N. Parusha Ramulu, (Died), Per LRs 7 and 9 Gopal S/o N. Parusha Ramulu (Died), Per LRs 14 to 18 [Claimant Nos. 5 and 6 are added as per the orders in lA No.469/96 dated 30.10.19961 Sugunamma, Wo. Pentaiah Chendra Sekhar, S/o. Pentaiah Rajasekhar, S/o. Pentaiah lClaimants 7 to I are added as per the orders in lA No.665/95 dated 27.02.19961 10 Thota Jangamma, Wo. late T.Jangaiah, I I I I 1 '1 . Thota Buchaiah, S/o.lateT.Jangaiah,

12. Thota Peddaiah, S/o. ate T.Jangaiah

13. Thota Chinna Jangaiah, S/o.late T.Jangaiah [Claimants 10 to 13 are added as LRs of Claimant No.2 as per the orders in lA No.482l05 dated 03.10.20051 '14. Ivlanemma, W/o.Late Gopal

1 5. Padma, W/o.Srinivasulu

16. Sandhya, W/o. Giridhar

17. Sreepad, Sio. Gopal

18. Naresh, S/o.Gopal fClaimants 14to 18 are added as LRs of Clamant No.6 as per the orders in lA No.264l06 dated 1 2.07.20061

19. T. Chinna Jangaiah, S/o. T.Chinna Ramaswamy

20. T. Chindraiah. S/o. T. Chinna Ramaswamy [Claimants 19 and 20 are added as LRs of Claimant No.4 as per the orders in lA No.265/06 dated 12.07.20061 ,..RESF,ONt)ENT/CLAIMANTS LA. NO: 1 OF 2014(LAASMP. NO: 517 OF 2014) 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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order and decree made in OP.No. 8 of '1989 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar including execution proceedings 3112007 pending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: GP for Appeals Counsel for the Respondents: No Representation The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: I I I t I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.168 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (1ter Hon'ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Deui Eada) This appeal, under Section 54 of the l,and Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short the Act') is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer - cum - Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar District, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.12'2006 passed in O.P.No.S of 1989 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the reference CourtJ.

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 based on a requisition made by the Chairman, Agricultural Market Committee, Kalwakurthy, the land to an extent of Ac. 10-11 guntas in survey Nos.665, 668 and 669 of Amangal Village, Kalwakurthy taluq was acquired. A draft notilication was publishe d on 26.12.1980 The acquired land is at the entrance of the village and there is a cinema theatre in front of the land and another cinema theater is within a distance of one furlong and that there are shops and houses around the land and t]lat it is suitable for residential houses and I I I 2 AKS,J & ETD,I LAAS No.168 2014 also comme rcial constructions. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acqr-risition Officer has granted the compensation @ Rs.7,OOO,/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed a peti:ion for reference and the same was referred under Section 18 c,f the Act to the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. 4 . The refe rence Court has framed the following issue for consideration 'Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is properly made, if not, to what amollnt the claimants are entitled?

5. Before the reference Court, the claimants got examined pWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.Al to A6. On behalf of the respondent, RW1 u,as examined.

6. Basecl on the evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1O/- per square yard and 2Oo/o is deducted tou,ards developmental charges and the net market value is fixed @ Rs.8/- per square yard, in addition to the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred the present appeal.

7. Heard the submissions of learned Government Pleader for the appellanr. No representation on behalf of the respondents. The- learned (iovernment Pleader has submitted that the reference 3 AKS,I & ErD,.t LAAS No.168 2014 Court has passed an erroneous order by enhancing the compensation and that the acquired lands do not fetch that much of value to hold that Rs.1O/- per square yard has to be given to the acquired lands. He further submitted that the reference Court has failed to observe the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer has considered 251 sale transactions relating to three years prior to the notification and arrived at the frgure of Rs.7,000/- per acre which should have been upheld by the reference Court' He, therefore, prayed to set aside the order passed by the reference Court by allowing this appeal.

8. Based on the above submissions, this Court frames the fotlowing points for determination: 1 2 Whether the claimants are not entitled for enhancement of comPensation? Whether the order and decree of the reference Court need any interference? 3- To what relieP

9. POINT NO.1: a) A perusal of the record reveals that since the claimants died, the LRs were brought on record and PW1 is the grandson of first claimant Parashuramulu. His evidence reveals that the land acquired is a part of Amangal village, he relied upon Exs'A2 to A6 which are the registered saie deeds pertaining to the years 1982, \ 4 AKS,J & ETD,J I-AAS No.168_2014 1980, 199 1. 1992 and 1979 respectively. Since, the acquisition is of the year 1980, the subsequent sale transactions cannot be looked into. Therefore, only Exs.A3 and A6 carl be taken into consideration, since they pertain to the relevant period of time, while the other sale deeds cannot be considered as they are subsequent to the acquisition. b) A perusal of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer reveals that the transaction under Ex.A6 is reflected at Sl.No. 114 but u'as not considered by him. PW3 is an independent witness and is a vendor of the transaction under Ex.A6. It shows that his land was sold @ Rs.83/- per square yard in the year 1979, thus it is revealed that the land fetches more value than what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. In his cross examination, RW 1 stated that might be a created document to help the claimants. But no evidence is adduced to prove his contention. c) A careful perusal of the entire record reveals that even as per the Land Acquisition Officer, the remaining un-acquired part of the land is inhabited with shops and houses and the police station is within a half KM and there is one cinema hall in front of the land and also another cinema hall within a distance of one furlong. The award further discloses that there are a good number of transactions in the preceding three years to the date of notification. I I 7 5 AKS,' & ETO,J LAAS No.168 2014 The said lact reflects that there is high potentiality of development in the lands in and around Amangal and that the transactions are on yardage basis. It is borne out by the record that the land was acquired for the purpose of establishing market yard and not lor agricultural purposes. Thus, it can be held thdt the lald has high potentiality to fetch more value than what is awarded by the t and Acquisition Oflicer and the Land Acquisition Officer could have fixed a higher amount of compensation. It is a-lso to be noted that the notification was issued in the year 1980 but the award was passed on 03.12.1985, after a gap of five years. t I d) Considering the said facts and evidence on record as discussed supra, the reference Court has rightiy enhanced the net market value of Rs.8/- per square yard after deducting 2O%o towards developmental charges apart from granting the statutory benefits. Hence, it is held that the order and decree passed by the reference Court is well justified. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

10. POINT NO.2: In 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. 6 A(s,J & ETD,J LAAS No.168 2014 a

11. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order and decree dated 30.12.20O6 passed in O.P.No.8 of 1989 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. No costs. Miscellaneous Petilions pending, if any, shall stand closed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// t\ I}D/-1(.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER '1 . The Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.(with records, if any) 2. Two CCs to GP for Aopeals, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies V}I/DL *-- HIGH COURT DATED: 0v10312025 JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.168 ot 2014 1 e STA ref 17 JUN flffi U .oesp,rt t o .b I * DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS 6 ---l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA LAAS NO: 168 OF 2014 Between: The Land Acquisition Mahabubnagar District AND Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, ..,APPELLANT/REFERRING OFFICER '1. N.Purusha Ramulu [Died], Per LRs 5 and 6 2. Thota Jangaiah (Died), Per LRs 10 to 13 3. Thota Laxmaiah, S/o.Yellaiah, Rl/o.Amangal. 4. Thota Chinna Ramaswamy (Died), Per LRs '19 and 20 5. Pentaiah S/o N. Parusha Ramulu, (Died), Per LRs 7 and 9 6. Gopal S/o N. Parusha Ramulu (Died), Per LRs 14 to 18 [Claimant Nos. 5 and 6 are added as per the orders in lA No.469/96 dated 30.10.19961

7. Sugunamma, Wo. Pentaiah 8. Chendra Sekhar, S/o. Pentaiah 9. Rajasekhar, S/o. Pentaiah [Claimants 7 to 9 are added as per the orders in lA No.665/95 dated 27.02.19961

10.Thota Jangamma, Wo. late T.Jangaiah, 1 1 . Thota Buchaiah, S/o.lateT.Jangaiah,

12.Thota Peddaiah, S/o. ate T.Jangaiah

13. Thota Chinna Jangaiah, S/o.late T.Jangaiah - [Claimants 10 to 13 are added as LRs of Claimant No.2 as per the orders in tA No.482l05 dated 03.10.20051

14. Manemma, W/o.Late Gopal 1 5. Padma, Wo.Srinivasulu

16. Sandhya, Wo. Giridhar

17. Sreepad, S/o. Gopal

18. Naresh, S/o.Gopal I [Claimants 14 to 18 are added as LRs of Clamant No.6 as per the orders in lA No.264106 dated 1 2.07.20061

19. T. Chinna Jangaiah, S/o. T.Chinna Ramaswamy

20.l.Chindraiah, S/o. T. Chinna Ramaswamy [Claimants 19 and 20 are added as LRs oi Claimant No.4 as per the orders in rA No.265/06 dared 12.07.20061 ...RESPoNDENT/CLA|MANTS Appeal filed under section 54 of L.A. Act of 1984 against the Order and Decree dated 30-12-2006 in o.P.No. 8 of 1989 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. 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 case and upon hearing the arguments of Gp for Appeals for the appellant and none appeared for Respondents either in person or by Advocate_ This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the LAAS No. 168 of 2014 be and hereby is dismissed uphotding the order and decree dated 30.12.2006 passed in O.p.No. 8 of 19g9 by the Iearned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar; and 2 That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO \ JOINT REGISTRAR \\- \ SE:CTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/i To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar 2. Two CD Copies +. HIGH COUIRT DATED: 0710312025 DECREE LAAS.No.168 of 2014 DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS 3 I