The High Court · 2025

Counsel for ther Appellant : THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel forther Respondent No.22 : SRI JVENKATESWARA REDDY Counsel for ther Respondents No.20 to 23 : B NARAYANA REDDY The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HONOUI'.IIBLT SRI JUSTICT ABTIINAND KI'IIAR SHAVILI AND HONOI'IU{BLE SRI JUSTICE IIAI(ITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Suit Ilo.36O9 of Jt DGMENT z (Per Hon'bli sri Justie vakiti Ramakri.shna ReddE) This appeal is preferred by tl:e appellant/ respondent aggrieved by the order dated 06.10.1998 passed by the learned principal senior civil Judge, warangal in o.P. No.134 of. L994, wherein the market value of tl.e subject land was enhanced from Rs.9,OOO/- to Rs-28,75O/- per acre' For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be

2. referred to as per t]reir arraybefore the reference court.

3. The brief facts of the case al.e that an extent of Ac.9-O4 guntas of land situated at Agrampatrad, choullapalli and Mustyalapalli was acquired for excavation of Kakatiya canal. An award was passed in the month of November, 1988 by the Land Acquisition Oflicer, who verifred the sales effected in the concerned villages prior to notifications and fixed the rmarket value of al.l the tands at Rs.9,OOO/- per acre. Aggrieved by the sarne, the petitioners/claimants filed claim applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Land 2 AKSJ &VRK& J AS-,6og_2oo4 Acquisition Oflicer for enhancement of the market value. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the said claim applicertions to the reference Court for proper adjudication. Some of the claimants liled individual claim statements and whereas some of the other claimants filed memos adopting the claimant statements filed by ottrers. Though the claimants claime,l in the body of the claim statement that the market value of the acquired properties at the time of notification was Rs.SO,()OO/- per acre, in prayer portion of some of the statements it is stated tl.at the claimants are entifled for Rs.1,5(),OOO/- per acre towards market value and Rs.20,O0O/- per acl:e towards the severance. The Land Acquisition Officer filed cc,unter opposing the claim of the claimants.

4. [)uring the course of enquiry, PWs 1 to 4 were examined on bettalf of the claimants and got marked Exs.Xl to X4 on behalf of the claimants and whereas RWl was examined and Exs.Bl to El4 were marked on behalf of respondents. After considr:ring the rival contentions, the reference Court enhanced the market value of acquired land from Rs.9,OO0/- to Rs.28,i'5O/- per acre. Aggrieved by the sam.e, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred the present appeal. 3 AKSJ &VRKR, J ASJ6o9_2o04

5. Heard the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent/appellant and Ms. Manjari S. G",,,, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/respondents/claimants and pemsed the record-

6. During the pendency of aPPed, respondent No-6 passed away and the learned counsel for the appeltant was directed to take steps to bring the legal representatives on record within a period of eight weeks, failing which, the appeal shall stand dismissed as abated against respondent No.6 without further reference to the Court and there is also a direction to ttre extent of directing the Registry not to entertain any application for setting aside the abatement order against respondent No.6 or an application under the caption 'for being mentionbd' as the appeal is pending since long time. since, the learned counsel for the appetlant failed to take necessarJr steps to bring the legal representa.tives of respondent No.6 on record as directed by this Court, the appeal is dismissed as abated against tl:e respondent No.6.

7. Though the claimants have souglrt for Rs'2O,OOO/- towards severance, the reference court did not award the same by observing that ttre ctaimants are not entitled for any a:nount 4 AKSJ & VRKR, J AS-J6o9_2oo4 towar<ls severance as the claimants did not adduce any evidence to show that they sustained damages due to severance and that they did not file any map to show that the canal divided tl:e lands of the claimants. Admittedly, tl.e clairnants have rrot preferred any appeal against the impugned order seeking further enhancement of the market value.

8. I{ow the point for determination is whettrer there are any substan+ial grounds to interfere with the impugned order dated

06.10. 1998 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal in O.P. No.134 of 1994?

9. fqlnt: The first and foremost contention of the learned counse I for the appellant is that the trial court erred in enhanring the market value of the acquired l,ands from Rs.9,0OO/- to Rs.28,75Ol- per acre by relying on O.p.No.132 of 1994 and Exs.X3 and X4 judgmenrs.

10. ltre learned reference Court relied upon Exs.Xl to X4 for enhancing the market value of the acquired lands. Ex.Xl is the certifrerl copy of orderin O.P.No.6 of L994 on the file of learned I Additio:nal Subordinate Judge, Warangal. Ex.X2 is the certifred copy of the order in O.P.No.l32 of 1994. Ex.X3 is the certilied {',, 5 AKSJ &VRKR, J ASJ6o9_2o04 copy of common order in O.P.Nos.61 of 1986 ryd 94/ Ex.X4 is the certified copy of the judgment of the High Court

1986. confirming the order passed in O.P.No.61 of 1986 and 54 of

1986. The learned reference Court observed in the impugned order that the High court frxed the market value in the appeals referred in O.P.No.132 of L994 at Rs.2S,OOO/- per acre and accordingly the learned Subordinate Judge opted for 5%o margin per year i.e., 157o for three years and fixed the market value at Rs.28,750/- per acre since the date of notification in O.P.Nos.3OlL986, 6L/L986 and 641L986 is of L984 and whereas the date of notifrcation in O.P.No.L32|L944 is of the year 1987. The lands covered by Ex.X3 are sihrated at Mustyalapalli Village and some of the subject lands in the present appeal are also situated in Mustyalapalli Village.

11. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appeltant is that all the lands are situated in different villages and in such circumstances, the reference Court ougfit to have arrived at the market value of each vitlage. It is pertinent to note that though the subject lands are situated in dilferent villages, even the Land Acquisition Oflicer fixed the market value of acquired lands at Rs.9,OOO/- per acre. Even in the 6 AKSJ &VRKR,J A5-36o9_2oo4 judgments relied upon by the trial Court under Exs.Xl to X4, thougt, the lands were situated in different villages, the market value was fixed at equitbrium rate on the ground that the villages are adjacent villages. L2. l\ perusal of tl,e impugned order discloses that though the claimasls have sought for enhancing the market value from Rs.9,OOO/- to Rs.1,5O,OOO/- and Rs.2O,OOO/- towards severance, the reference Court rightly considered the relevant documentar5r evidence reli.ed upon by the claimants and arrived to an appropriate conclusion of enhancing the market value from Rs.9,OOO/- to Rs.28,75O/- by denying any compensation under tl:e head of severance. 'fhe reference Court rightly observed in the impugned order that there is no golden yardstick to fix the market value of the lands specially in Telangrma Area where there is no general practice of obtaining registered sale deeds. It was further observed that usually in North 'Ielangana Districts, transfers of agricultural lands are made trnder simple sale deeds which are regularised during the preparation of record of rights and even if there are some isolatecl transactions took place under registered instruments, there isr a tendency of showing undervalue in the instruments in order to avoid stapp duty and registration fee. In the absence 7 AKSJ &VRKR, J ASJ6o9_2o04 of any documentary evidence in the form of sale deeds and having no other option, the reference Court has rightly relied upon Exs.Xl to X4 for arriving to a reasonable market value of the acquired lands at the relevant point of time. No material is placed by the appetlant either before the reference court or before this Court to substantiate that the market value as enhanced by the reference court is not in proper perspective.

13. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that there are no tenable grounds to interfere with the well reasoned ord'er passed by the reference Court. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. L4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous apptications pending if any in the appeal, shall stand closed. sD/ - A.V.S PRASAD DEPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To, t ;l !i t

1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal 2. One CC to THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, High court, HYD [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI J VENKATESWARA REDDY Advocate [oPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. B NARAYANA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies ASR/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:12l08/:2025 JUDGMENT AS.No.3609 of .2004 STATE l$lt G)}- t1 J$N * ( c() * DISMISSING THE APPEAL ?\ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FVE ?rl:Fl=iffi THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUiIAR SHAVILI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKIT! RAMAKRISHNA.REDDY Between: The Special Deputy Collector, LA Unit Warangal APPELLANT AND

1. Vancha Mohan Reddy, S/o. Kanakaiah 2. Kasula Sambaiah, S/o. Brahmaiah 3. Katherasala Veeraswamy, S/o. Sammaiah 4. Borigam Narsaiah, S/o. Dharmaiah 5. Vanche Sambasivad Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy 6. More Chander Rao, S/o. Ramaiah 7. Bolla Saraiah, S/o. Chandraiah 8. Allapuram Devaiah (DIED per LRs R-20), S/o. Malkaji 9. More Radha Bai, Wo. Rama Rao

10.More Narsaiah, S/o. Kanakaiah

11.More Chander Rao, S/o. Babu l2.Thipparapu Rajeshwar Rao (DIED per LRs R-21), S/o. Kanakaiah 13. Pingili Sambaiah S/o Venkataiah (Did per LR R-22)

14. Atmakuri Rajamouli, S/o. Sayanna

15. Enreddy Raji Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy

16. Yedulapuram Ramachandram, S/o. Venkati

17. Kokkonda Bixapathi (Died per LR R-23)

18. Koddonda Narsaiah, (Died per LR R-24)

19. Madhuru Sambaiah (All are rcsiding at Agrmpahad (V), Athmakur (M), Warangal District.

20.A. Madhusudhana Rao,, S/o Devaiah, aged 45 yrs., R/o. Agrampahad (V), Atmakur Mandal, Warangal Dt. (Brought on record as LRs of deceased R.No.8 vide C.O., dt.26.07.04 in CMP.No.1208Ol20O4) 2l.Thipparapu Radha Baya,, W/o T. Rajeswara Rao, aged 28 yrs., R/o. Agrampahad (V), Atmakur Mandal, Warangal Dt. (Brought oh recordd as LR of deceirsed R-12, vide C.O., d1.26.07.2004 in CMP.No.12081/04)

22.P Rdi F:eddy, S/o Sambaiah, aged 20 yrs., R/o. Agrampahad Atmakur Mandal, Warangal Dt.(Brought on record as LR of-deceased R-13 vide C.O., d1.26.7 .?-OO4 in CMP. No. 1 2082/04)

23. Kokkonda Prameela, Wo Kokkonda Bixapathi, aged 35 yrs., R/o. Agramp;ahad Atmakur Mandal, Warangal Dt. (brought on record as LR of deceased R-1 7, vide C.O.d1.26.7.2004 in CMp.No.1 207 AlO4).

24.Kokkoncla Lachamma, Wo Kokkonda Narsaiah, aged 45 yrs., R./o. Agrampahad Atmakur Mandal, Warangal Dt.(Broudht on rbcoid as LR of deceased R-1 8, vide C.O.dt.26.7 .2004 in C.M. P. No .1ZOt 9 104) RESPON DENTS'GLAIMANTS. Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal passed in OP No. 134 ol'1994, dated 6-10-1998. 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 the Advocate General for the Appellant and Mr. Manjari S. Ganu, Advocate, for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That this appeal is be and hereby dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree of lhe lower court.

2. That there shall be no order as costs. To

1. The Principral Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. 2. Two CD Copies. sD/- A.V.S DEPUTY OFFICER HIGH COURT DATED:1210812025 DECREE AS.No.3609 of 2004 DISMISSING TI.IE APPEAL 0) \2q ta\or