The High Court · 2025

Kaleswari. UV/() [.ax,ranna, Aged 58 years Srnt. Rangarnrna, W/o Laxmanna, Aged 68 years Smt fUunernn'a. W/o Ranganna, Aged 58 years Sudarshan. S/,r Chinnappa, Aged 58 years Smt. Satyarrnra. W/o K. Venkat Raju, Aged 42 years K- Chinna Irnqanna, S/o Chinnaiah, Aged 65 years K Nallanna, Sro Ranganna, Aged 45 years K. Venkat Raju S/o Ranganna, Aged 48 years K. Rangannur. il/'o Sakeeranna @ Pakeeranna /\ged GB \,,tars .1. Kurva Linganna @ Pedda Potta Linganna, S/o Chinnaiah, aged 68 years 1 1 2. c. Krishna Reddy, S/o Hanmi Reddy, Aged 58 years 13.G Pedda Krishna Reddy, S/o Kista Reddy Aged 62 yrs 14 R Venkateswar Reddy, S/o l\4ohan Reddy, Aged 48 yrs 15 Laxmidevarrma, Wo lt/ohan Rr:cJdy, Aged 50 years 16 G Hanmanthu, Sio Narsappa. Aged 58 years 1/ f)ontmala Ralesh tt/luneppa. S/o A/luneppa (Declared as lr,4ajor as per order in lA No 303i20 15 dt 30.6.2015) '18 Sr,,rt PaCmamma, Wo Srinivas Reddy, Aged 48 ycars .l 9 G Srinivas Reddy. S/o Krishna Reddy, Aged 52 years 20. D. Yugandhar Reddy, S/o Sarva Reddy, Aged 48 years 21 Jayamma, Wo Nallanna, Aged 40 years 22 Chinna Nallanna, S/o Chintalanna @ Chintalappa Aged 42 years 23. Smt. Khalamma, S/o Hanurnantl.tu, Aged 55 yls 24 K Shankaramma, Wo Venkatanna, Aged 48 yrs. 25 Kurva Karrenna, S/o K. Kallanna. Aged 68 years 26. Gudise Kurmanna. S/o. Santenrta, Aged 58 years 27 Gudise Venkatanna, S/o Santena. Aged 58 years 28.l\4yakala Ranganna, S/o Jammanna, Aged 52 yrs 29.Myakala Savaranna, S/o. Jammanna, Aged 50 yrs 30. Narsipuram Ranganna, S/o Muneppa, Aged 62 yrs. 31 Balaram, Sio Balappa, Aged 58 years 32 Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, Aged 58 yrs. 33 G. Srinivas Reddy, S/o Hanmi Reddy, Aged 52 yrs. 34. D. Bhagavantt', R.OOy, S/o Nallareddy, Aged 68 yrs. 35 Smt Shamanthakamma, Wo D.Govardhan, Aged 58 yrs. 36. Kurva Chinnaiah, S/o Kallanna, Aged 72 yrs. 37 Sale Srinivasulu, S/o Savaranna, Aged 52 yrs. 38 Kotla Rameswaramma, W/o Kotla Ammi Reddy Aged 68 years 39. Ranganna, S/o Jinke Balappa (Died) per LRs S1.No,44 to 49 40. Khaja l,4oinuddin, S/o Nizam Ali(Died) per LRs S1.No.50 to 54 41. H. Laxmi Bai, Wo late H. Siddanna, Aged 62 yrs. 42. t-{ Nagamma, D/o late H. Siddanna, Aged 41 yrs. 43. H- Sujatha, Wo Nagaraju, Aged 36 years (S1-No.41 to 43 Added as LRs of Claimant No-1 vide orders in lA No.301/2015 Dated 30.06.2015)

44. Vimalamma, W/o late K.J.Ranganna, Aged 58 yrs. 45. Nallanna, S/o late K.J. Ranganna, Aged 44 yrs. 46.Suresh, S/o. late K.J. Ranganna, Aged 36 yrs. 47. tvluni Swamy, S/o late K.J. Ranganna, Aged 32 yrs 43. Laxrni Bai, D/o late K.J. Rattganna, Aged 35 yrs 49 Sujatha, D c, late K.J. Ranganna, Aged 38 yrs. (Sl.Nc.44 to 49 AdCeci as LR:; of Clainran No.39 vide orders in lA No.302/2015 Datt-'d 30 06 2015t liO Fathinri Ll,.r: Wo Khaja l\i{oinuddin, Aged 42 years 1l i B. Rcsnr r D1o Khaja ft/loinuddin, Aqed 28 year:; B {)ouia Re.: Wlo Khala i\,iornLrtjl- n il-)ied ) Per LRs 52la 54 i,2 B .,'\f ri'r I Kir.rja i.4oinuddirr Aged 18 years Ir.1 B Asrr:r l),r: (6.1- I\4otnuddtn Ageti 16 years 1.4 B Sarr;. i 1i Khala lt/loinLrddin Aged 12 yr-.ai-s (A i Resi)ordent ari) liqrrr.ult, rr:, ,., :in(l R/o Nandrrttaila Vtllage. Atrttalcur lrtandal \,r/anaparthy I) str cl , Res po n d entslPetitio ners lA NO: 2 OF 2C1!) Pr:trtron rrrr,tt:r Section 151 of OPC praying that in tlrc circurnstarrces stated in tlrc affrriirv;; 'rl ri in supocrt of the petrtron the Higtr Co-rt nay lle t)leased to pas-( oid(r'rs i( :l'1y' tir() exccution of the ludgnrent ancl der:ice Datcd C.ii04i2t) ly f)ass.,.I ir O i-- i'l, air of 201 1 lty thl ScnioI Civil .Judge. (larl,,n,;tt CROSS OBJECTIfN NO:53 OF 202'1 Between: 1 llarijan Srdi'anna S/o Ashanna(Died) Per t,R Nos.41 to 43 2 Kalesrnrarr t",V/o l. axmanna. AlJed 58 years 3 Snrt. Rarrr;a nma. W/o l-axmanna, Aged 68 years 4 Srnt. lVurrrrnrna. Wo Ranganna, Aged 58 years 5 Sudarshan, S/o Ctrinnappa. Aged 58 years 6 Smt. Satyanrma, Wo K. Venkat Raju, Aged 42 years 7 K Chinne [, rnganna. S/o Chinnaiah, Aged 65 years 8 K Nallarrna S/o Rangarrna, Aged 45 years 9 K. Venkal R,r1u, S/o Rarrganna, Aged 48 years 10. K. Rangann;r. S/o Sakeeranna @ Pakeeranna, Aged 68 yerrrs 11 Kurva Linganna @ Pedda Potta Linganna, S/o Chinnaiah, aged 68 years 12. G. Krishrr;r l- eddy, S/o Hanmi Reddy, Aged 58 years 1l] G Pedda Kr shna Reddy, S/o. Kista Reddy Aged 62 yrs 14. R. Venkates,,var Reddy, S/o Mohan Reddy, Aged 48 yrs 15. Laxmidevarnnra. W/o Mohan Reddy, Aged 50 years 16 G- Hanmantlru, S/o Narsappa, Aged 58 years 17. Pommala. [1i9sh Mqn^eqqa, S/o. tVluneppa (Dectared as [r/ajor as per order in lA No 303./21 15 dt 30.6 2015) '18. Smt. Padmarnma W/o Srinivas Reddy, Aged 48 years i I G. Sririiva:; i.lecldy S/o Krishna Reddy, Aged 52 years

20. D. Yugandhar Reddy, S/o Sarva Reddy, Aged 48 years 21 . Jayamma, Wo Nallanna, Aged 40 years 22.Chinna Nallanna, S/o Chintalanna @ Chintalappa Aged 42 years 23. Smt. Khajamnra: S/o Hanurnanthu, Aged 55 yrs. 24 K Shankararnnra. Wo Ver)katanna, Aged 48 yrs 25. Kurva Karrenna. S/o K Kallanna. Aged 68 yczrrs 26 Gudise Kurrnanna. S/o. Santenna, Aged 58 years 27 Gudise Venkatanrra, S/o Santena, Aged 58 years 2B ti4yakala Ranganna, S/o Jammanna, Aged 52 yrs 29.lt4yakala Savaranna, S/o. Jammanna, Aged 50 yrs. 30. Narsipuram Ranganna, S/o lvluneppa, Aged 62 yrs. 31. Balaram, S/o Balappa. Aged 58 years 32. Sudhakar Redcly. S/o Venkat Reddy, Aged 58 yrs. 33 G. Srinivas Reddy. Sio Hanmi Reddy, Aged 52 yrs. 34 D. Bhagavanth Reddy, S/o Nallareddy, Aged 68 yrs. 35 Srnt Shanra nthakanrnra, Wo D.Govardhan, Aged 58 yrs. 36 Kurva Chirrnaiah, S/o Kallanna, Aged 72 yrs. 3/ Sale Srinivasulu. S/o Savaranna, Aged 52 yrs. 38 Kotla Rameswaramma, Wo Kotla Ammi Reddy Aged 68 years 39 Ranganna. S/o Jinke Balappa (Died) per LRs S1.No.44 to 49 40 Khaja ft/loinuddin, S/o Nizam Ali(Died) per LRs S1.No.50 to 54 41.ll. Laxrnj Bai. Wo late H. Siddanna, Aged 62 yrs. 42 I'i. Nagamma, D/o late t'1. Siddanna, Aged 41 yrs. 43. H. Sulatha, W/o Nagaraju, Aged 36 years (S1.No.41 to 43 Added as t-Rs of Clairnant No.1 vide orders in lA No.301/2015 Dated 30.06.2015) 44 Vinralamrna. W/o late K.J.Ranganna, Aged 58 yrs. 45. Nallanna, S/o late K.J. Ranganna, Aged 44 yrs 46. Suresh, S/o. late K.J. Ranganna, Aged 36 yrs. 47. li/luni Swanry, S/o late K.J. Ranganna, Aged 32 yrs. 48. Laxmi Bai. Dio late K.J. Ranganna, Aged 36 yrs. 49. Sujatha, D/o late K.J. Ranganna, Aged 38 yrs. (Sl,No.44 to 49 Added as Ltis of Claimant No.39 vide orders in lA No.302/2015 Dated 30.06.2015)

50. Fathima Bee, W/o Khaja fi/oinuddin, Aged 42 yearc 51. B-Resma, .?/p .[[rja. Moinuddin. Aged 28 years B. Douta Bee, Wo Khaja Moinuddin(Died) Per LRs 52 to 54

52. B.Afrin, D/o Khaia Moinuddin, Aged 18 years 53. B.Asma, D/o Khaja lrloinuddin, Aged 16 years 54. B.Sana, D/o Khaja_ ttrloinuddin, Ag_ed 12 years (All Responderrt are Agriculturists and R/o Nandrmalla Village, At'nralcur'Mandal,' Wanaparfty District) ...Cross-Objectors / Respondcnt ANt) I-he land /\lrc ,rlirticn Officer. Speci;rl t)eprrty Collector RBLlliP, Pebb:ir ll \'Vanapilrlh !' ar :rtlrat ... Res pon d e n UA ppe lta nt Counscl for tlrc /rppellant itr LAAS and for Respondent ir Cross Objections GP FOR APPEAI_S Courrsel for the R:spotrderrts in LAAS and for Cross Objcctor in Cross Obicctions : SRI C B RAF/I MOHAN REDDY The Court dclivcrr,rl the following: COMMON JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABI{INAND KUMAR SIIAVILI AND I ION'rlLE SMT JUS'r'tCE',t'I Rt j r\fALA Drtvt r,t,{ I)A f.44.S Ns-128 qL2!19 & (Iross ()!fie<-tion No.52 rrf 202 t ;ttrtl l-AAS.No.140 of 2019 & (lnrs () .5-i of 2021 eQL[\IQNJUDGMENT: (tir I lut: i't, f r'ritL.:lLtliuul Kuno \i, tri) Since tlre issuc involved in these matteni is orrr: rrnd the same. they are being heard toscther and disposed ol' lrl w:r,\: oi this corrrnurrr jLrdgrnenL.

2. Agairut the order dated 01.04.2019 passcc'l il O.P.lrio.55 ol 2012by thc Scnior GvilJudge, Gadwal, LAAS No,12ti of 2019 is filcd by the Land Acqursition Officer-curn Spccirrl Dcpuq' Gllector and Cross Objections No.52 of 2021 arc lilcd by thc clainrants-cross objectors. Against the order datcd 0.1.04.2019 passeci in O.P.No.40 of zOlt by the Senior GvilJudgc, Gadu,al, LAAS Nr.140 of 2019 is filed by the Land Acqtrisition Officer- cum-speciai Deputy Collector and C-ross Objectiorr-s No.53 o[ 2021 arc filed by the claimants-cross objectors, 2 l. Lcarned Government Pleader appeerirLg for the appellanrs Land Acquisitiorr Officcr had conten,led tlrat thc issuc in.,r,lved in tlrcse rnilrten is squarch' covered b1, the jr.rdgrncnt rcndered b1, this C-out in LArLS No.L24 of 2019, rlated 2.r.C1.2025, lrLrt. thc onl1, diffetence is r:rat thc lands in qucstiou rr,'situatt,,l et N:rutlinr;rlla Village, s'hct'eas tlre l:urds in I.AAS No 124 of 2019 arc sittr;rtcd at Moolamalla !'illage and the distanc,: [r.'tueen Nandinrella \iillage and ]r4ool:unalla Village is thr-ee kikrnretcrs. Leamcd (lor.ernment Pli':r,ler had ftuthcr contendr:rl that as the lands 1n questlorl :1fe situated at Nandirnall.r Villagc, w-hich are :rt a distance of ttuce kilonreters from Mo<,l,rmalla Village, another ]0% be dr,ducted frorn the cornpcns;r ion deter rrriled

4. l-r:arned counsel appearine for thc respondr:nts-clairnants does not tlispute thc factrul o[ thc disnnce ber'"vee,n Nandimalla Village ,rrrd Moolarnalia Villaec i.e., three kilonrten and in principle, agreed for deduction of another 30ulo of thc total conlpcnsaLlou.

5. In vicu, ol- tlrc s;une and ftrllowing, tire juduinent r-endcnril by this (i;un in LAAS No.124 of 2019, darcd 25.04.2015, thc appeals rrnd the cross objections ,rre disposed of and the nrarkct r.,,rluc of tlre acqLrircd land is fr,xcd at Rs.400/- pcr square 1,anl. No costs. Miscellaneorrs Petitions, if any, pending in thcse appcals sh,rll stand closed. f'.--\, SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYi/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal 2. Two CCs to the GP FOR APPEALS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) 3 One CC to SRI C B RAt\4 MOHAN REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ADK/PST, .% HIGH COI.JIRT DATED:1 611612025 COMMON JUDGMENT LAAS No.128 ot 20'19 & Cross Objection No.52 of 2021 AND LAAS.No.140 of 2019 & Cross Objection No.53 of 2021 liiE li ( la ) ,:) 2s0[I il6 '2. * * t)lTi:, DISPOSING ()F THE BOTH APPEALS A[{EI CROSS-OBJ [:CTIONS WITHOUT COSTSi b,L THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT.IUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.Nos.122 724 132 AND 135 0F 2019 AND CROSS OBTECTIONS Nos.8, 9,54,64 AND 66 OF 2021 COMMON UDCMENT I (l'er Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Since the issue invoived in all these appeals and cross objections is one and the same, all these appeals and cross objections are being heard ancl disposed of by way of this commoll judgment.

2. When the matters are taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the cross objectors-claimants had informed the Court that the lands in question were acquired by the State for the purpose of excavation and forming embankment of parallel canal from Priyadarshini Jurala Project. The State has acquired large extent of land for the said purpose. When some of the land losers sought reference, the reference Court has fixed the compensation at Rs.385/- per Square Yard in O.P.No.7 of 2011, dated 13.04.2017 Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred an appeal before this Court and the same was numbered as L.A.A.S.No.599 of 2017 2 AKS,.] & ETD,J L r. \.S.No.122 of20I9 & batch and the clairnants therein have also preferrer: an appeal l.e. L.A.A.S.No.5(t of 2021 seeking further e'rrh:rncement of compensation, and a Division Bench of this Court z,lde cornmon juclgment, da'cc1 28.09.2022, was pleased to riismis's the appeal preferrecl bv the State and allow the appeal pref:rred by the claimants therein and enhanced the compcnsation from Rs.385/- per Square Yard to Rs.700/- per Square Yard. Aggrieved by the cornmon judg nent, dated 28.09.2022, ttre State has carriecl the matter to lhe Honourable Supreme Cor-rrt by filing S.L.P.(Civil).No.1918 of 2024 and the Honourable 9upreme Court \ras pleased trr dismiss the same ttitle order, tlatec 10.07.2024. Therefore, the subject matter of the present cases is squarely covered by the common judgment, dated 28.09.2022, ,:endered by this Court in L A.A.S.Nos.599 of 2017 and 50 of 2(,121. 'fherefore, following the aforesaid judgrnent, dated 28.09.2022, the appeais preferred by' the State are liable to be dismissed anC the cross objections preferred by the claimants deserve to ke zrllowed, by enhancing the narket value of the acquired land to Rs.700/- per Square Yard. J AKS,.J & ETD,J L.A.A.S.No,l22 of2019 & batch

3. Learned Gol,ernment Pieader for Appeals appearing for the appellant did not dispute the same.

4. In view of the same, this Court is of the considcrcd view that the appeals preferred by the State arc liable to be dismissed and the cross objections preferred by thc claimants cleserve to be allowed by enhancing the market value of the acquired land to Rs.7O0 / - per Square Yard.

5. Accordingly, L.A.A.S.Nos.722,724, 132 and 135 of 201"9 are dismissed and Cross Objections Nos.8, 9, 54, 64 and 66 of 2027 are allowed, in terms of the common judgment, dated 28.09.2022, rendered by this Court in L.A.A.S.Nos.599 of 2017 and 50 of 202L, which was confirmed by the l-Ionourable Supreme Court, and the market value of the acquired land is enhanced to Rs.700/- per Square Yard with all statutory bcnefits as stipulated under the amended Land Acquisition Act. However, it is made clear that the cross objectors shall pay deficit Court Fee, if any, on the enhanced compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs. -1 AKS,J & STD,J L A.A S.N( .122 of 2019 & batch Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ABHINAND KUNIAIi: SHAVtLI, I Date: 25.04.2021. lv{I-) TIRUMALA DI]VI EADA,J THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI L.A.A.S.NoS. 599 of 2Ol7 and 5O of 2O21 COMMON JUDGMENT: lPer Hon'ble Justice G. Srideui) These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since L.A.A.S.No.599 of 2Ol7 frled by the Land Acquisition Officer and L.A.A.S. No.5O of 2021 liled by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation, are directed against the very same common order, dated 73.O4.2O17 passed in O.P.No.7 of2011 and batch on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Gadwal (for short "the reference Court"). By the impugned common order, the reference Court, in respect of the market value of the acquired land, has uniformly enhanced to Rs.385/- per square yard from Rs.64,500/- per acre for dry land ald Rs.74,5OO per acre for irrigated dry land and Rs.89,5OO/- per acre for wet lands, as awarded by the L.A.O.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the lands belonging to the claimants were acquired by the Government for the purpose of excavation and formation of embankment of parallel canal to Priyadarshini Jooral Project (LMC) by issuing draft notilication under Section a (i) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 2 GSD, J and MGP, J taas_599_2017 and 50 2021 "the Ar:t") on O4.08.2OO9 followed by draft notification. After due enqu.ry, the Land Acquisition O{Iicer has passed an award under Ex Il1 fixed the market value of the acqulred land on

27.03.2010 frxing the market value of the acquired land as indicated zrbove. Having received the compensaticn under protest, tLe claimants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act fc r enhancement of the market value. Initjally, the reference Oourt has hxed the market value of the ar:qu:red land at Rs.25/ per square meter. When the claimants apqrroached this Court by way of L.A.A.S.No.4I3 of 2O14, this ()ourt by judgment dated 27.O4.2O16, remanded the malter to thc referencc Court to dispose of the reference alresh holding that proper ep[. reciation of euidence on record in arriuing at the market uahrc was not done bg the reference Coun. Ctn such remand, th: reference Court after duly analyzing the cvidence brought on record, has uniformly enhanced the market .,7alue to Rs.385/- p'-.r square yard from Rs.64,5OO/- per acre for dry land and Rs.74,500 per acre for irrigated dry land and Rs.89,5O0/- per acre for wet lalds, as awarded by the L.A.O. Aggrieved bl, the said enhancement, while the L.A.O. preferred L.A.A.S.No.599 of 2017 the claimants hled L.A.A.S.No.5O of 2021 seekinl; further enhancement of compensation. GSD, J and MGP, J Laas_599_2017 and 50 2021

3. Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals and learned counsel appearing for the claimants. Perused the material available on record.

4. The learned counsel for the claimants, appellants in L.A.A.S. No. 50 of 2O21 submits that the reference Court has erroneously hxed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.385/- per square yard without taking into consideration the sale deeds covered by Exs.A.6 to A.10. It is contended that the land was converted from agriculture purpose to non-agriculture purpose; in fact, the lands acquired were used for commercial purpose; that the lands were situated at Mandal Headquarters and has all amenities like educational institutions, hospitals, post office, cinema theatres, market yard etc., and therefore, the reference Court ought not to have deducted 307o towards developmentai charges. It is contended that when varlous sale transactions are available with different sale considerations, the one which is higher should have been taken into consideration. When Ex.A1O is available reflecting the market value in the vicinity at Rs.121O/- per square ya-rd, which is just slr months before the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, the reference Court has wrongly relied upon Ex.A8 whereunder the 4 GSD, J and MGP, J t aas_599_2() l7 and 50_2021 sale consideration was shown as Rs.55O/- per square yard, rvhich pertains to one and half year prior to tht: iss uance of notilicatio-r under Section 4 (1) of the Act. It i:; further contended that the proximity of time and the pro;<imiry of location o' the land covered by Ex.A1O is comparable to the present acluired land- It is lastly contended that rhe reference Court oughl. not to have discarded Ex.A1O, sale transaction on the mere qround that smaller extent of land was sold thereunrler. In this regard, it is contended that lvhen there is no compar.rble sale transaction to that of the larg(:r extent of land is av:rilable, there is no bar for the Court tl) t.&e into consideration even the sale consideration pertaining to smaller cxtent of Ia rd. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks to enhance the market value of the acquired land basing on Ex.A I O, sale transacti()n.

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would submit that the reference Court has erred in enhancing the market valu( of the acquired land at an abnormal rate of l55O7n for three cat,:gories of land than the one awarded by the L A O' without ther,: being any proper evidence- It is contended that the referenct: Court ought not to have relied upolr the sale 5 GSD, J and MGP, j Laas 599 .2017 and50 2021 transaction covered by Ex.A8, whereunder small piece of land to an extent of 223 square yards was sold whereas the present acquired land is more than twelve acres. It is further contended that when the Court is granting compensation for the acquired land in square yard basis, it is not proper for the learned counsel for the claimants to contend that there should not be any deduction towards developmental charges and therefore, the reference Court was right in deducting 3O%o towards developmental charges- It is lastly contended that inasmuch as similar exemplar sales are available, it is not proper for the reference Court to take into consideration the sale transaction, whereunder smaller extent of land was sold.

6. In order to prove their claim that the acquired land would fetch Rs.1OOO,/- per square yard, the claimants apart from examining P.Ws.1 to 10, got marked Exs.A6 to A1O, sale transactions, which are within three years prior to the date of notification. Out of them, Ex.AS relates to plot in Atmakur Town, whereunder sale consideration for an extent of 223.88 square yards was sold for Rs. 1,23,550/- which works out to Rs.550/- per square yard. Inasmuch as the acquired lald is also situated within Atmakur town, the reference Court basing 6 CSI), J and MGP, J Uut_599 _2{t) 7 and 50 2021 on Ex.A8 has fixed the market value at Rs.550/. p(:r square )rard and after deducting 3O7o towards developm(:nta charges ftxed thc r ct value of Rs,385/ per square yard. Horvever, under Ex.A1O, :;irle transaction, the land to an extent of 44-44 square ],ards sitrl:rtcd in Atmakur town itself, was sold for Rs.54,0OO/- which rvo:ks out to Rs.12lO/- per square yard. But the reference Court did not take into consideration the sale transacliorl under Ex.A1O on the ground that the same pertains to a small piecc of land. If the same analysis is applied, the reference (lor.rrt was not right even in taking into consideration Ex.AS, rvhr:reunder only an extent of 223.88 squarc yeirds was sold, which is very small when compared with the size of the acquired land.

7. [n Chinmanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisitio;rt, the Apex Court at para 4 held as under-:- "Duen post notification in-stances can be tqken into accc,unt (1) if theA are uety proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acqtisition itself has not motiuattd the purchaser to pag q higher pice on accou,tt of the resultanl int()rouemeftt in d.euelopment prospects....(1O) The most comparabLe rnstances out of th.e genuine instances haue to be iCentified on the follou'ing considerations: (t) praxtmitA from time angle, (ii) proximitg from situation angle" '{1988) s scc 7s1 '1 GSD, J and MGP, J Laas 599 2017 and 50 2021

8. As seen from tJle evidence, Ex.A1O pertains to six months prior to the issuance of noti{ication, where as Ex.AS pertains to one and half years prior to the issuance of notification. Though the proximitlr of situation of land under Exs.A8 and AlO is similar, but proximity of time is more appropriate to EX.AIO when compared with Ex.AS. Thus, the reference Court ought to have relied on Ex.A10 instead of Ex.AS for fixation of the market vaiue of the acquired 1ald.

9. As regards the rejection of Ex.A10 and other sale transactions by the reference Court, in Mehrawal Kheuaji Irust (Regd), Faridkot and others u. Stdte of Punjab and. othersz the Apex Court held that "When the land is being compulsoily taken auag from a person, he is entitled to the highest ualue which similar land in the localitg is shoun to haue fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a williq purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. " Since among Exs.A6 to A1O, the sale consideration under Ex.A10 being highest one, the reference Court ought to have fixed the market 'lzorzy s scc,t:u .l CSD, J and MGP, J Laas_599_.201 7 and 50_2021 value of the acquired land basing on EX.A1O. It is also settled law that when comparable exemplar sale is not available. even a sale transaction in the same locality which pe rtain to smaLl extent can also be relied upon for fixation o I t he market value. As regards the contention of the le.rrn:d cotrnsel for the claimants that the reference Court ought not to have deducted 30(T towards developmr:ntal charges in view of the conversion of land from agrir r-rlture to non-agricultural purpose, this Court is not inclin,-'d to accept the said contention for the reason that whcn the compensation is awarded under square yard basis, it is appropriate to deduct 30o/u towards developmr::rtal charges considering the nature and potentiaiitv of the land. Therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance t te market value of the acquired land from Rs.550/- pirr square yard to Rs.1,000/- and after derlucting 3001, toward; developmental charges therefrom, the net value is hxed at Rs.667/- per square yard.

9. In the result, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the L.A.O. i.e., L.A.A.S.No.599 ol 2017 , we ailow L.A.A.S.Nc,.50 of 9 GSD, J and IvICI,, J aas_599 2017 and i0 2021 202 1 preferred by the claimants, fixing the net market value of the ac-cluirecl land at Rs.667/- per square yard together x,ith all othcr stalutorv bcncfits :rs per the arrended Act. There shall bc no oralcr as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closcd G. SRI DEVI, J SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J

28.O9.2022 gkv/tsr IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA LAAS.No.128 of 20'19 & CROSS OBJECTION No OF LAAS.No.128 OF 2019 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer-cum Spl. Dy. Collector, R.B.L.l.S.P. Pebbair-ll, Wanaparthy District. AND 1 Hanumanthu, S/o Sotta Mallappa, Aged 57 years, Occ: Agriculturist and R/o Nandimalla Village, Atmalcur Mandal, Wanaparthy District. 2 Beerappa, S/o Kury Ashanna Aged 52 years, Occ. Agriculturist and R/o Nandimalla Village, Atmalcur Mandal, Wanaparthy District. ...AppellanUReferencer ...Respondents/Petitioners CROSS OBJECTION No.52 OF 2021 Between: '1. Hanumanthu, S/o. Sotta Mallappa, Aged 57 years, 2. Beerappa, S/o. Kurv Ashanna, Aged 52 years, (Respondents are Agriculturists and R/o. Nandimalla Village, Atmakur Mandal, Wanaparthy District. AND If," !3!O,,n"lyisition Officer, Speciat Deputy Coilector, RBL|Sp, pebbair_il, vvanaparthy uistrict. .. C ross-Objectors/Res pondent ...RespondenUAppellant Appeal unde rr Section 54 of L.A. Act 1894 and Memorandum of Cross Objections filed un,ier Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC, '1908 against the Judgment and decree dated 03.04 2019 made in O.P.No.56 of 2012 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil J udge, Gadwal. This appeal ;rnd Cross Objections coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal and Cross Objections the Judgment and Dr:cree of the Lower Court and the matr:rial papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of GP FOR APPEAL S. for the Appellant in LAAS and for Respondent in Cross-Objections ard SRI C B RAM TUOHAN REDDY, l\dvocate for the Respondents in LAAS and Cross Objector in Cross Objections. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the LAASi.No.128 of 2019 be and hereby is disposed of by following the Judgm'ent date.d 25-04-2025 in LAAS.No.124 of 2019:

2. That the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.400/- per square yard ,

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. K.SRINIVASA RAO .JOI\T REGISTRAR \ \ //TRUE COPY' TION OFFICER To, 1 . The Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal 2. Two CD Copies ADK/PSI, % HIGH COURT DATED:1610612025 "/ DECREE LAAS No.128 of 2019 & Cross Objection No.52 of 2021 DISPOSING I)F THE APPEAL AND CROSS.OBJ ECTION WITHOUT GOSTS )r 0 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA LAAS.No.140 of 2019 & CROSS OBJECTION No.53 of 202'l Between: The Land Acquisition Officer-cum Spl. Dy. Collector, R.B.L.l.S.P. Pebbair-ll, Wanaparthy District ...AppellanUReferencer AND 1 2 4 ( r) 7 B o Harijan Siddanna,S/o Ashanna(Died) Per LR Nos.41 to 43, Kaleswari, Wo Laxmanna, Aged 58 years Smt. Rangamma, Wo Laxmanna, Aged 68 years Smt. Munemma, Wo Ranganna, Aged 58 years Sudarshan, S/o. Chinnappa, Aged 58 years Smt. Satyamma, Wo K. Venkat Raju, Aged 42 years K. Chinna Linganna, S/o Chinnaiah, Aged 65 years K Nallanna, S/o Ranganna, Aged 45 years K. Venkat Raju, S/o Ranganna, Aged 48 years

10. K. Ranganna, S/o Sakeeranna @ Pakeeranna, Aged 68 years 1'1. Kurva Linganna @ Pedda Potta Linganna, S/o Chinnaiah, aged 68 years 12. G. Krishna Reddy, S/o Hanmi Reddy, Aged 58 years 13. G. Pedda Krishna Reddy, S/o. Kista Reddy Aged 62 yrs. 14. R. Venkateswar Reddy, S/o lt/lohan Reddy, Aged 48 yrs 15. Laxmidevamma, W/o Mohan Reddy, Aged 50 years 16. G. Hanmanthu, S/o Narsappa, Aged 58 years 17, Dommala Rajesh Muneppa, S/o. Muneppa (Declared as l/ajor as per order in lA No.303/20 1 5 dt.30.6.201 5) '18.Smt. Padmamma, W/o Srinivas Reddy, Aged 48 years '19 G. Srinivas Reddy, S/o Krishna Reddy, Aged 52 years 20. D. Yugandhar Reddy, S/o Sarva Reddy, Aged 48 years 21. Jayamma, Wo Nallanna, Aged 40 years

22. Chinna Nallarrna, Sio Chintalanna @ Chintalappa Aged 42 years 23. Smt. Kha.jamrna, S/o Hanumanthu, Aged 55 yrs. 24. K. Shankaranrma, Wo Venkatanna, Aged 48 yrs. 25. Kurva Karrenna, S/o K. Kallanna, Aged 68 years 26. Gudise Kurmrrnna, S/o. Santenna, Aged 58 years 27. Gudise Venkatanna, S/o Santena, Aged 58 years 28. Myakala Rangranna, S/o Jammanna, Aged 52 yrs. 29, Myakala Savaranna, S/o. Jammanna, Aged 50 yrs. 30. Narsipuram Ranganna. S/o Muneppa, Aged 62 yrs. 31. Balaram. S/o l3alappa, Aged 58 years 32. Sudhakar Reody, S/o Venkat Reddy, Aged 58 yrs. 33.G. Srinivas Reddy, S/o Hanmi Reddy, Aged 52 yrs. 34. D. Bhagavanth Reddy, S/o Nallareddy, Aged 68 yrs 35. Smt. Shamanthakamma, Wo D.Govardhan, Aged 58 yrs 36. Kurva Chinnairh. S/o Kallanna, Aged 72 yrs. 37. Sale Srinivasulr.r, S/o Savaranna, Aged 52 yrs. 38. Kotla Rameswaramma, Wo Kotla Ammi Reddy Aged 68 years 39. Ranganna, S/o Jinke Balappa (Died) per LRs 51.No 44 to 4tt 40. Khaja Moinudc'in, S/o Nizam Ali(Died) per LRs 51.No.50 to 54 41. H. Laxmi Bai, \V/o late H. Siddanna, Aged 62 yrs. 42.H. Nagamma, l/o late H. Siddanna, Aged 41 yrs. 43.H. Sujatha, Wo Nagara.ju, Aged 36 years (S1.No.41 to 43 Added as LRs of Claimant No.1 vide orders in lA No.30'1/2015 Dated 30.06.2015)

44. Vimalamma !\'/o late K.J Ranganna, Aged 58 yrs. 45. Nallanna, S/o l,rte K.J. Ranganna, Aged 44 yrs. 46. Suresh, S/o. Ia.e K.J. Ranganna, Aged 36 yrs. 47. Muni Swamy, Siio late K.J. Ranganna, Aged 32 yrs. 48. Laxmi Bai, D/o late K.J. Ranganna, Aged 36 yrs. 49.Sujatha, D/o la:e K.J. Ranganna, Aged 38 yrs. (Sl.No.44 to 49 Added as LRs of Claimant No 39 vide orders in lA No.302/20'15 Dated 30.0€;.2015)

50. Fathima Bee, V/io Khaja Moinuddin, Aged 42 yea's 51. B.Resma, D/o Khaja Moinuddin, Aged 28 years B. Doula Bee, Wo Khaja Moinuddin(Diec) Per LRs 52lo 54

52.B.Afrin, D/o Khaja tt/loinuddin, Aged 18 years 53.B.Asma, D/o Klraja Moinuddin, Aged 16 years 54. B.Sana, D/o (haja Moinuddin, Aged '12 years (All Respondent are Agriculturists ard R/o Nandimalla Village, Atmalcur frlandal, Wanaparthy District) ...Respondr:nts/Petitioners I CROSS OBJECTION NO: 53 OF 2021 Between:

1. Harijan Siddanna,S/o Ashanna(Died) Per LR Nos.41 to 43, 2- Kaleswari, W/o Laxmanna, Aged 58 years 3. Smt. Rangamma, Wo Laxmanna, Aged 68 years 4. Smt. lt/unemma, Wo Ranganna, Aged 58 years 5. Sudarshan, S/o. Chinnappa, Aged 58 years 6. Smt. Satyamma, W/o K. Venkat Raju, Aged 42 years 7. K. Chinna Linganna, S/o Chinnaiah, Aged 65 years B. K. Nallanna, S/o Ranganna, Aged 45 years 9. K. Venkat Raju, S/o Ranganna, Aged 48 years 10. K. Ranganna, S/o Sakeeranna @ Pakeeranna, Aged 68 years 11. Kurva Linganna @ Pedda Potta Linganna, S/o Chinnaiah, aged 68 years '12.G. Krishna Reddy, S/o Hanmi Reddy, Aged 58 years 13.G. Pedda Krishna Reddy, S/o, Kista Reddy Aged 62 yrs. '14. R. Venkateswar Reddy, S/o Mohan Reddy, Aged 48 yrs '15. Laxmidevamma, Wo Mohan Reddy, Aged 50 years 16.G. Hanmanthu, S/o Narsappa, Aged 58 years 17. Dommala Rajesh lt/uneppa, S/o. Niuneppa (Declared as lt/lajor as per order in lA No.303/2015 dt 30.6 2015)

18. Smt. Padmamma, Wo Srinivas Reddy, Aged 48 years 19.G. Srinivas Reddy, S/o Krishna Reddy, Aged 52 years 20. D Yugandhar Reddy, S/o Sarva Reddy, Aged 48 years 21 .Jayamma, Wo Nallanna, Aged 40 years 22. Chinna Nallanna, Slo Chintalanna @ Chintalappa Aged 42 years 23. Smt. Khajamma, S/o Hanumanthu, Aged 55 yrs. 24. K. Shankaramma, Wo Venkatanna, Aged 48 yrs. 25. Kurva Karrenna, S/o K. Kallanna, Aged 68 years 26. Gudise Kurmanna, S/o. Santenna, Aged 58 years 27,Gudise Venkatanna, S/o Santena, Aged 58 years 23.Myakala Ranganna, S/o Jammanna, Aged 52 yrs.

29. Myakala Savaranna, S/o. Jammanna, Aged 50 yrs.

30. Narsipuram Ranganna, S/o Muneppa, Aged 62 yrs. 31. Balaram, S/o Balappa, Aged 58 years 32, Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, Aged 58 yrs. 33.G. Srinivas Reddy, S/o Hanmi Reddy, Aged 52 yrs. 34. D. Bhagavanth Reddy, S/o Nallareddy, Aged 68 yrs. 35. Smt. Shamanthakamma, Wo D.Govardhan, Aged 58 yrs. 36. Kurva Chinnaiah, S/o Kallanna, Aged 72 yrs.

37. Sale Srinivasulu, S/o Savaranna, Aged 52 yrs. 38. Kotla Rames'ruaramma, Wo Kotla Ammi Reddy Aged 68 ye,ars 39. Ranganna Sio Jinke Balappa (Died) per LRs S1.No.44 to 49 40 Khaja Moinucldin, S/o Nizam Ali(Died) per LRs S1.No.50 to 54 4'1 . H. Laxmi Bai Wo late H Siddanna, Aged 62 yrs. 42. H. Nagamma D/o late H. Siddanna, Aged 4'1 yrs. 43. H, Sujatha, V//o Nagaraju, Aged 36 years (S1.No.41 to 4:i Added as LRs of Claimant No. I vide orders in lA No.30'1/2015 Dated 30 06.20'15)

44.Vimalamma. \/V/o late K.J.Ranganna, Aged 58 yrs. 45. Nallanna, S/o late K.J. Ranganna, Aged 44 yrs. 46. Suresh. S/o. I.rte K.J. Ranganna, Aged 36 yrs. 47. Muni Swamy, S/o late K.J. Ranganna, Aged 32 yrs. 48. Laxmi Bai, Dio late K.J. Ranganna, Aged 36 yrs. 49.Su.iatha, D/o late KJ. Ranganna, Aged 38 yrs. (Sl.No.44 to 49Added as LRs of Claimant Nrr 39 vide orders in lA No.302/2015 Dated 30.Ct6.2015)

50. Fathima Bee, W/o Khaja Moinuddin, Aged 42 years 51 B.Resma, D/c Khaja tVloinuddin, Aged 28 years B Douler Bee, Wo Khaja Moinuddin(Die d) Per LRs 52 lo 54

52. B.Afrin, D/o Khaja Moinuddin, Aged '18 years 53. B.Asma. D/o F.haja Moinuddin, Aged '16 years 54. B.Sana, D/o Khaja Moinuddin, Aged 12 years (All Respondent are Agriculturists and R/o Nandimalla Village, Atmalcur Mandal, Wanaparthy District) ...Cross-Objectors / Respondent AND The Land Acquisit on Officer, Special Deputy Collector, RBLISP, Pebbair-ll, Wanaparthy Distrirl. ... Re,:;po ndenUAppellant Appeal under Section 54 of L.A. Act 1894 and Menror:rndum of Cross Objections filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC, 1908 against tlre Judgment and decree dated 03.04.2119 made in O.P.No.40 of 2011 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, G;rdwal. This appeal and Cross Oblections coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal and Cross Objections the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of GP FOR APPEALS, for the Appellant in LAAS and for Respondent in Cross-Objections and SRI C B RAt\4 MOHAN REDDY, Advocate for the Respondents in LAAS and Cross Objector in Cross Objections. This Courl doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the LAAS.No.140 of 2019 be and hereby is disposed of by following the Judgment dated 25-04-2025 in LAAS.No.124 of 2019:

2. That the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.400l per square yard;

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal 2. Two CD Copies ADK/PSI, 9 HIGH COURT DATED:1610612025 DECREE LAAS No.14() of 2019 & Cross Objection No.53 of 2021 DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL AND CROSS-OBJ E:CTION WITHOUT COSTS \q