High Court · 2025

18. N.ousu Chinna Narsimhulu, Late Jambulanna @ Nousu Jambulanna. Aoed ilti;"niti;E;, il;;;il;no?r1""' ". 19.Nousu Naresh, S o. Late Jubmulanna @ Nousu Jambulanna, Aged about 30 ,rri;iilr;;ili"" Asricutturist, R o. Raikode v,iiiage, Ni"; M;rd;i, b",&rrilP*

20. Nousu Narsimhulu, S o. Lale Jambulanna @ Nousu Jambulanna, Aged about occ Asricutturist, n o. nji[ooe Vii=uju, ir:"*, Mandar, Nariyanaper 3ilf.1" 2r'N Bheemanna, S o. Late chinna Hanumanthu @ Nousu chinna Hanumanthu. virirg", N;'*;iui;jili,'", Aged about 44 vears occ Agricurturiii C Narayanapet District "l'nrir,'="ll 22 N Venkatanna, s o. Late chinna Hanumanthu @ Nousu chinna Hanumanthu. Aged about 44vearc occ esricuriuri;i R;.'d.r,Y;; Vilrs;: Nj;*;M;ffi;i:,"' Narayanapet District

23.Nousu Anand, S o. Late Chinna Hanumanthu @ Nousu Chinna Hanumanthu Aged about 37 vears occ RsriCuitJii.t, R ;.'#k;;;Vt;s;,'N:;";,il];ii:i:", Narayanapet District

24. Nousu Laxmanna, S o. Late.Chinna Hanumanthu (@ Nousu Chinna Hanumanthu. Aoed aboui sa y"r;oi; Aijiidrlt,]r"*t R o. Raikode Vilage, Narva tvandat, Idarayanapet diiiiiit-"" ' r,r rvsrlul rrr ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appeltant : SRt. cp FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondents: C B RAM MOHAN REDDY Counsel forthe Respondents 15_18 & 20 : SRI C.B. SIDDA HAJU (16567) The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.1O3 of 2Ol9 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Deui Eoda) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') is preferred try the Land Acquisition i Officer, Narayanpet, aggrieved by the order and decree dated

19.09.20i8 passed in O.P.No.47 of 2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') .

2. For convenience and clari[y, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Reference Court.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the Land Acquisition Ofhcer has acquired the Iands situated at Raikod Viilage of Narva Mandal for the purpose of construction of new irrigation tank across Uilivagu at Raikod vitlage. The draft notihcation under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 16.09.1993 and the advance possession was taken on 10.12'1986. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Ofhcer has awarded a compensation of Rs.6,5O0/ - per acre. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have made an application and the sarne was I I \ 2 AKS,] & ETD,] LAAS No.103 2019 .! .a referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal 4 . The case of the claimants is that therr acquired lands arc fertile lands and they used to raise commercial c.rops and earning an income of Rs.10,000/- per acre from irrigated dry iands and that the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have fixed the market value @ Rs.50,0OO/- per acre.

5. The Land Acquisition Officer has Illed a reply statemcnt contending that after due cnquiry, the said au,ard u,as passed.

6. The Reference Court has framed the following points for consideration " I . Whether the claimants are entitle d enhancement of the compensation for the acquired lands belonging to them, if so, to what ex[ent?

2. To what relieP"

7. Before the Reference Court, the claimants got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked trxs.Al to A7. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.2 1,375/ - per acre, apart from 3 AKS,I & ETD,I LAAS No,103 2019 the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the Land Acquisition Ofhcer' g. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri C.B.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos l to 14 and Sri C.B.Siddarth, learned counsel for respondent Nos 15 to 24.

10. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the order and decree of the reference Court is contrary to the facts and 1aw and that lhe reference Court has failed to consider the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer has fairiy assessed the compensation at Rs.6,5O0/- per acre. He further argued that the reference Court has blindly believed the evidence of claimants and has enhanced the compensation by more than 372 times. He further contended that the reference Court ought not lo have granted statutory bene{its in contradiction to the statute and that Exs A l and 42 were not supposed to be relied upon by the reference Court He therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree by allowing this appeal.

11. The learned respondents counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the reference Court has rightly enhanced the compensation and that the land acquired has high potentiality for \ \ 4 AKs,J & ETD,J LAAS No.103 2019 development and thus, he prayed to uphoid the order and decree of the reference Court

12. Based on the above rival submissions, this Court frames the following poin t s for consideration: 1 2 Whether the claimants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation? Whether the order and dccree of the relerence Clourt need any interference? To what re1iell2

13. POINT NO.1: a) The contention of the learned Government pleader is that the reference Court has wrongly believed the documents under Exs.A 1 and A2. Exs.A1 and A2 are the sale deeds dated 06. 10.1986. A perusal of the said sale deeds shows that the sale consideration o[ the lands sold under the said sale deeds, is Rs.1O,O0O/- per acre. Ex.A3 is the award copy in O.P.No.245 of 1990. It arises out of the Land Acquisition Oflicer Award No.8 of 1989 for acquiring the lands in the same village i.e. Raikod village. In the sard case the Land Acquisilion Officer has granted Rs.2,OOO/ per acre for dry iands and Rst"QOO/- for- wet lands, while the reference Court has granted Rs.1O,OOO/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.15,000/_ per acre for wet lands. Thus, it is elicited that on an earlier occasion I 5 AKS,,I & ETD,I LAAS No.103 2019 there was an acquisition in the same village and that the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- and Rs' 15,000/- respectively for dry and wet lands in the said area by the reference Court. b) RW1 in his evidence has admitted that the Government has not preferred any appeal against the said orders in O'P No'245 of

1990. Therefore, taking the said trx.A3 into consideration and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ahasanul Hoda u' State of Bihart , the reference Court has fairly awarded the compensation by adding 107o escalation every year. c) It Ahcrsanul Hoda's case, it was held that 10% market value has to be added while awarding compensation when there is a time lag for a period upto a year. Since, there is a time lag of four years and three months between the acquisition under Ex'A3 and the notihcation in the present case, an escalation of 1O% of market value every year has to be added. , ,| d) It is elicited during the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that their lands are irrigable dry lands, since they have the borewells dug in their lands. Thus, the compensation in trx'A3 for wet lands is taken into consideration which is @ Rs 15,0OO/- per acre and t I ' atn zot3 sc a+e: 6 A(S,] & ETD,] LAAS No.103 2019 - adding 1O7o escalation to it, an amount of Rs.21,375/, per acre was arrived at by the reference Court, which appears to be just and reasonable. Thus, through Exs.A1 to A3 and also by the admission made by RW1 it is clear that the lands at Raikod village do fetch higher value than what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence, it is held that the claimants are entitled lor cnhancement of compensation. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly. T4. POINT NO.2: In vierv of the reasoned finding arrived at point No. 1, this Court holds rhat the order and decree of the reference Court do not need any intcrference.

15. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the orclcr and decree dated 19.09.2O 18 passed in O.p.No.47 of 2O 1 1 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shali sLand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal. 2. One CC ro SRt. cp FoR APPEALS, HtcH COURT, HYD.IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRt. C B RAM MOHAN REDDy Advocate [OpUC] 4. One CC to Sri C.B. S|DDARTH, ADVOCATE (OPUC) 5. Two CD Copies *p I L j .*.rti-.!'. 'iu r-11o a. a, HIGH COURT DATED:21 104t2025 JUDGMENT LAAS.No.103 of 2019 STATS .J o (j 1 i $)JB N15 6) * * DES PA( DISMISSING THE APPEAL n \ HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL ...- TWO,TUOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HoNouRABLE sMT liisnce TIRUMALA DEVI EADA LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL NO: 1 03 oF 2019 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet' APPELLANT AND

1. Uppari Chandrappa and 13 Others' S/o. Hanmanthu' Age 50 years' 2. Chinna Hanmanthu, S/o Laxmanna' Age' 56 years' (Died as per LRs 21 lo 24) Chinna Narsappa(died), died LR N'Venkatanna' S/o'Chinna' Age 52 3 4 Jambulanna, Sio. Narsappa, Age.S2years. (Died as per LRs 16 to 20) 5. Marku Hanmanna, Age' 55 Years' 6. Smt. Laxmamma, W/o Hanmanthu' Age' 42 years' 7. Narsappa, S/o. Hanmanthu, Age' 42 years' 8. K.Anjaneyulu, S/o. Bushanna, Age' 48 years' 9. Krishnaiah, S/o. Nagappa, Age' 50 years' 10. Ashok, S/o. Ayyappa, Age 35 years' (Died as per LR 1 5) 1't. Smt. Kistamma, Wio. Ayyappa, Age 60 years' 12.Myatri Venkatanna, S/o Hanmanna' Age' 60 years' l3.Narsimhulu, S/o. Ayyappa, Age 45 years' 14.Aniilaooa, S/o. Ayyappa, Age 40 years' (All are Occ' Agriculture' Rio' il16ie Village oiNarva Mandal)'

15.K. Aruna, W o. K. Srinivas Goud' Daughter.in.law of Late Smt' Kistamma. Aged about;; y-";;; n o'ilirit<at Village and Mandal' NaraYanaPet District' ,:^f?;,slffii"#1.*:r,ir,L{ft##*Tiil?,:ire^A",,rs." ,^fltii,:fri3#gffiA;."41,*r-Hffi a)?;;:*?Hslil:*, ,"#:{ii,,"ili"2i,i{f #,",ihq;:",,i;,[t,A"::a,@-].Tiy,, jil*** ;.i-,1it}"r:ifi "{:itsr?l,',rn[,Hr:g,il".,Tvi,#lr,J:dff j,, 'il11ilil":?,s,#:&"11t;,i.1H:'"A:igJfi i,:,##;;. ;l[iii111+,t:iHf##h:?t#;rll,-e,ut:"Arr3." ,. *111",-= *:iriffif#h."#;irr ffi ,r? f i 3Arr:o" ,.^i,nU:u*;fl',ix:f "fi.i,,#ffi agfl }H*@",rysii,f H:[xo" ' #;:iifi#;en *"lt a",:ii6iuillrc x"rx,?nu" ,..RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Judgment ""0 civir Judge, oroui",=' o"".""oatij^"^"t:^" 54 of Land Acguisitio ut' t9 09 2018 in o.P.No.47 of 2011 n Act, j894, against the on the file of the Senior rhe petition _ ORDER : This appe of appeal, *" ,*rr"l,ll1 comins on ror hearins an and upon nurr,ll?"'"'uu "r,; .;;.::lo 'oon l Ram Mohan -;, 'arr*,. "r'o"r'uurt ooour"n, and of sri Iu xespondents. ".JTnt perusins the srounrrs and the material papers in t;:ent Pleader for Appeals for .8. Siddarth, Advocates for "* That this Court doth order and decree as follows: 1 2 To, That this court while dismissing the appear confirmed ail the averments made in judgment and decree of the lower court. That there shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD.ISMAL PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal

2. Two CD Copies. w HIGH COURT DATED:21 l04tZ02S DECREE LAAS.No.103 of 2O1g DISMISSING THE APPEAL e1 P(