The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None Appeared LAAS.No.'!16 of 2019 & CrqsLObjection No.34 ot 2021 Appeal filed Under Section 173 of tt/.V. Act and \ e,morandum of Cross Objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of C P.C., aggrieved by he Award and Decree dated 03-04-20'19 in O.P No.52 of 2012 on the file of the Cr L rt of the Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal, [t4ahabubnagar District LAAS.No.1 16 of 201 9 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer-cum Spl Dy. Collector Wanaparthy District. R L.l S.P Pebbarar, \ ppella nURefere ncer AND 1 2 ) P. Narsimha Reddy. S/o P Kantha Reddy, Age.62 ye: s;, P. Narender Reddy, S/o. B. Ram Reddy, Age. 57 years. P. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, Age: 55 years, (All Respondents are Agriculturist and R/o. Jurala Vill; c;e, Atmakur lvlandal, Wanaparthy District) ...Re!;'ondents/Petitioners Cross Ob ection No.34 of 2021 Between: P.Narender Reddy @ B.Narender Reddy, S/o B Ram Redc /, Age.62 years, R/o Jurala Village, Atmakur [Vandal, Mahabubnagar District. AND ...Cross Objet: :r/Respondent No.2 'L Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collectr , RLISP-ll, Pebbair ...Rc: pondenUAp pellant 2. P.Narsimha Reddy, S/o P.Kantha Reddy, Age: 62 yea :, Occ. Advocate and Agriculture, R/o Jurala Village, Atmakur fvlandal, presert 7 living at H.No 1'l-8- 97, Kranthi Nagar Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad. Mahabubnagar District.

3. P.Venkat Reddy, S/o Late Linga Reddy, Age 82 a:ars, Occ. Retired Government Headmaster and Agriculture, R/o Jr-rr: a Village, Atmakur Ivlandal, [Vlahbubnagar Dislrict, Presently Residing at L No.52lA, Thirumala Residency, Flat No.202, Vengalrao Nagar, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/R: ;pondents No.1 & 3 (Respondent No.2 & 3 herein were added only as a pr() orma party in this appeal and as such no notice is necessary to him in this cr< ss objections) lA NO: 2 OF 2019 in LAAS.No.116 of 2019 Petition under Section '151 CPC praytng that in the crr ) trnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders to stay the execution of the Judgment and Decre: dated 03-04-20i9 passed in O.P.No.52 of 2012 by the Hon'ble Senior Civrl Judg t , Gadwal. Counsel for the Appe ant in LAAS.No.116 of 2019 & Respondent No.1 in Cross Objection : Gp FOR APPEALS Counsel fo.r the Respondents No.1 to 3 in LAAS.No.116 of 2019 & Respondents No.2 & 3 in Cross Objection , Sii C. purushotham Reddy Counsel for the petitioner in Cross Objection: Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT HON'BI,E SRI JUSTICE ABIIINAND KUM,\ ]. SHAV]LI AND HON'BI-E SMT JUSTICE TIRUMAI-A DE, 'I EADA I-AAS Nos.106 & 116 ot2019 4nd Cross Obiection No.34 ot 2021in I-AAS No.llri rl2019 COI4I4ANJUDGI,{EXT: (t'er I ton'bi, lu.'tt,t lltlattdnd Krn,t .\r,,t \When the matter is taken up for heari,n ;. leamed counsel appearing for the appellants-clainr nts had submimed that rhe issue involved in this appeal i sqr:arelv covered by the comnon judgment of thr-s -bun in LAAS.No.SS of 2019 & batch, dated t2.06.2025. Leamed Govemmenr Pleader appearing ior the respondent-Land Acquisition Ofiicer does not cii 1>ute the saicl fact. In view of the same :rnd following thc ()ITUIOn judgment dated 12.06.2025 in LAAS.No.85 I 2019, L.AAS.No.116 of 2019 is dismissed and LAAS l. r.106 of 2019 and Cross Objection No.34 of 2O2I are ailor ird. The I 2 claimants are entitled to the market value of the acquired Iands on the enhanced rate of Rs.7OOl- per square yard with all consequential benefits under the amended Land Acquisition Act. However, it is made clear that appellants in LAAS No.106 of ZOtg and the Cross Objectors shall pay deficit Court fee, if any, on the enhanced compensatton. Miscellaneous petirions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/. K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR /a coPY/' 'TRUE oFFlcER 'EcrloN To, 1 The Sentor Civil Judge at Gadwal fi/ahabubnagar District (with records' ifa nY) Z dne'Cc to Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta' Advocate IOPUC] ;. il;6c io sti G. Purushotham Reddv' Advocate [oPUCl 4. Two CCs to GP rOn nipinLs' nign Co"t for the State of Telangana at 5. Two CD CoPies HYderabad [OUT] Kam/PS L 1",XRN o) : I i I I I i HIGH COURT DATED:1610612025 COMMON JUDGMENT+COMMON DECI IEE LAAS.Nos.106 & 116 of 2019 And Cross Objection No.34 of 2021 in LAAS.No.116 of 2019 \iE SI4 It: )B 24TEBM i J () 1. I LAAS.No.116 of 2019 IS DlSMISSED AND LAAS.No.106 of 2019 and CROSS OBJECTION No.34 ot 2021 ARE ALLOWED (v r {us *l"l'c ' HON'ELE SRI .IUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.Nos. 85 & 113 of 2O19 & Cross Objections No.59 OF 2O2L in LAAS No. 113 of 2OL9 COMMON WDGMENA i (Per rlon blc Si JLLstice Abhin()nd Kumar Shauili) Since the issue involved in the appeals is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Against the order dated 03.O4.2019 passed 1n O.P.No.61 of 2Ol1 by the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwa-I, LAAS No. 113 of 2019 is filed by the Land Acquisition Ofhcer-cum-Special Deputy Collector and LAAS No.85 of 2Ol9 and Cross Objection No.59 of 2021 are filed by the claimants.

3. Learned counsel appearing lor the appellants- claimants (LAAS No.85 of 2079) had contended that lands of the appellants-claimants situated at Atmakur Village were acquired for the purpose of excavation and forming embankment of parallel canal to Priyadarshini Jurala Project and the subject lands are fertile lands and they are 2 situated half kilometer from Atmakur Bus S tand. Learned counsel had further contended that withr trt conducting proper enquiry and without following : re mandatory provisions laid down under Sections l5 and l3 of the Land Acquisition Act, l8g4 (for short ,the Ac ,), the Land Acquisition Officer has determined the [, ,r,vssf market

4. Learned counsel appearing for thr appellants_ claimants had further contended that o.p.r,r >.61 of 2o1r was disposed of along with O.p.Nos.64 of tZ)11 & 52 of 2012, uide common order dated 03.O4.2)lg. a.ggrieved by the order passed in O.p.No.64 of 20 j the Land Acquisition Officer has filed LAAS No. I32 of t2 )19 and the claimants therein filed X_Objection No.64 ot 2(,.ll and this court uide common judgment dated 25.04.2o:2 i dismissed the appeal hled by the Land Acquisition )fficer and allowed the Cross Objections filed by the cl L.rmants by enhancing the rnarket value of the land acquire, I therein to Rs'700/- per square yard with a[ statutory renetits as 3 stipulated in the amended Land Acquisition Act, by following the judgment dated 28.O9.2022 rendered by this Court in LAAS Nos.599 of 2Ol7 and 50 of 2021, which was conhrmed by the Apex Court and therefore, similar order be passed in these matters also

5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer (LAAS No. 113 of 2019) had contended that the lands covered under L.A.A.S.Nos.599 of 2Ol7 and 50 of 2021 are situated at Atmakur Village, whereas, the lands in question are far away from Atmakur village. Therefore, the earlier order, dated 28.09.2022 passed by this Court in L.A.A.S.Nos.599 of 2Ol7 and 50 of 2021 has no application to the present cases. Learned Government Pleader had further contended that the Reference Court has deducted 3oyo of the compensation awarded for the lands covered under L.A.A.S.Nos.599 of 2Ol7 and 50 of 2O2l . Since the subject lands are situated far away from Atmakur Village, the 4 Reference Court ought to have deducte: 6O% of the compensatlon.

6. Learned Government Pleader had fur , .r:r contended that L.A.A.S.Nos.599 of 2077 and 50 of 2it21 are filed aggrieved by the order dated 13 .O4 .2O I t passed 1n O.P.No.7 of 2011, wherein, the Referen:: Court has awarded compensation on square yard basi ,. but not on acerage basis. But, in the instant case, t te Reference Court has awarded the compensation on ir )erage basis Therefore, there is a clear distinction betwc, n the order, dated 13.04.20 17 passed in O.P.No.7 of i'.' )11 and the order passed in O.P.No.61 of 2071. Therefo-: the appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer deserves o be allowed and the appeal and the cross objections prel:rred by the claimants are Iiable to be dismissed.

7. Having considered the rival submissic,r ,s made by both the parties and on perusal of paragraph llo.2o of the Reference Court order, it is to be seen tha:. t he Specia-l Deputy Collector has admitted in his cross- ,xamination 5 that the lands in question are situated haif kilometer away from Atmakur bus stand. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the lands in question are situated 4Vz kllometers away from Atmakur village cannot be accepted. Therefore, this Court has rightiy followed its earlier order and dismissed the appeals preferred by the State and allowed the cross objections preferred by the claimants as indicated above. Hence, this Court is bound to follow its earlier orders and the present appeal prelerred by the State is liable to be dismissed and the appeal and cross objection preferred by the claimants deserve to be allowed.

8. Accordingly, L.A.A.S.No.113 of 2019 is dismissed and LAAS No.85 of 2Ol9 and Cross Objection No.59 of 2O21 in L.A.A.S.No.I13 of 2Ol9 are aliowed. The claimants are entitled to the market value of the acquired lands on the enhanced rate of Rs.700/- per square yard with all consequential benefits under the amended Land Acquisition Act. However, it is made clear that appellants 6 in LAAS No.B5 of 2Ot9 and the Cross Obje< tors shall pay dehcit Court fee, if any, on the enhanced r ()mpensation. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pen: ing in these appeals sha11 stand closed. ABHINAND KUMAT SHAVILI, J TIRUMALA I) gVI EADA, J Date: 1,2.06.2025 Note: Registly is dirccte(l Lo llnncx copy of thc common judgrnenl, daLed 25.O4.2025 passed in L.A A. S.No. 132 of 201 1) & barch and also the comnton judement dated 28 .O9 .2022 n LAAS Nos.599 of 2017 and 50 of 2021 B/o. prat/ rkk [ 3445 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD IMONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA LAAS Nos: 106 & 1'16 of 2019 Cross Oblection No.34 ot 2O21 in LAAS.No.1 16 of 2019 LAAS.No.106 of 2019 Between:

1. P.Narsimha Reddy, s/o P.Kantha Reddy, Age. 62 years, Occ: Advocate and Agriculture, r/o Jurala village, Atmakur Mandal, presently living at H.No.11-8- 97, Kranthi Nagar Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. P.Venkat Reddy, s/o Late Linga Reddy, Age 82 years, Occ. Retired Government Headmaster and Agriculture, r/o Jurala village, Atmakur Mandal, Mahbubnagar District, presently residing at H.No.52lA, Thirumala Residency, Flat No.202, Vengalrao Nagar, Hyderabad. ...Appella nts/C Ia imants No.1 & 3 AND

1. Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, RLISP-ll, Pebbair, lVlahabubnagar District. ... RespondenUReferring Officer

2. P-Narender Reddy, s/o B.Ram Reddy, Age. 59 years, r/o Jurala village, Atmakur [t/landal, [Vlahabubnagar District. LAAS.No.116 of 2019 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Spl. Dy Wanaparthy District. . Respo ndenUC la ima nt No.2 Collector, R L.l.S.P. Pebbaiar, ...AppellanUReferencer AND 1 2 3 P. Narsimha Reddy, S/o. P. Kantha Reddy, Age.62 years, P. Narender Reddy, S/o. B. Ram Reddy, Age: 57 years, P. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, Age: 55 years, (All Respondents are Agriculturist and R/o Wanaparthy District) Jurala \ i zrge, Atmakur lvlandal .,.Ro po ndents/Petitione rs Cross Obiection No.34 of 2021 Between: P.Narender Reddy @ B.Narender Reddy, S/o B.Ram Re:1y, Age. 62 years, R/o Jurala Village, Atmakur l/landal, Mahabubnagar District. ...Cross Obje ,r tor/Respondent No.2 I\rlahabubnagar District. AND'l Land Acqursition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collect ,r , RLISP-ll, Pebbarr, ...Ft spondenUAppellant 2. P.Narsimha Reddy, S/o P.Kantha Reddy, Age: 62 ye,r s, Occ. Advocate and Agriculture, R/o Jurala Village, Atmakur Mandal, preser l/ hving at H No.1'l-8- 97, Kranthi Nagar Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad.

3. P Venkat Reddy, S/o Late Linga Reddy, Age: B:' vears, Occ. Retired Government Headmaster and Agriculture, R/o Jur rla Village, Atmakur lrlandal, [/ahbubnagar District, Presently Residing at ].No.52lA, Thirumala Residency, Flat No.202, Vengalrao Nagar, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/R .spondents No.1 & 3 (Respondent No.2 & 3 herein were added only as a prr forma party in this appeal and as such no notice is necessary to him in this cr tss objections) Appeals filed Under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Ar I ;rnd Memorandum of Cross Objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C., aggrie'r rl by the Aweird and Decree dated 03-04-20'19 passed in O.P.No.52 of 2012 on rl e file of the Court of the Senior Crvil Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District. These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perr;ing the qrounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the r raterral papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of GP FOR APPEI LS for Appellant rn LAAS.No 116 of 2019 and Respondent No.'1 in Cross Crl iection and Sri G. Purushotham Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in _ \AS No 116 of 2019 & Respondents No 2 & 3 in Cross Objection and Sri K. Venka.r sh Gupta, Advocate for the Appellants in LAAS.No.'106 of 2019 and Appellants in Crc ;s Objections. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1. That the LAAS No.116 of 2019 be and hereby is disrri: sed; 2. That the LAAS No.106 of 2019 and Cross Objection I,l r 34 of 2021 be and hereby are allowed;

3. That the claimants be and hereby entrtled to the market value of the acquired lands on the enhanced rate of Rs.700/ per square yard with all consequential benefits under the amended Land Acquisition Act, and 4. That it is made clear that appellants in LAAS.No.106 of 2019 and lhe Cross Objectors shall pay deficit Court fee, if any, on the enhanced compensation. SD/. K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal, lVlahabubnagar Drstrict 2 Two CD Copies Kam/l'>S [. 'J-k, HIGH COURT DATED:1610612025 COMMON DECREE LAAS.Nos.106 & 116 of 2019 And Cross Objection No.34 of 2021 in LAAS.No.116 of 2019 LAAS.No.116 of 2019 IS DISMISSED AND LAAS.No.106 of 2019 and CROSS OBJECTION No.34 of 2021 ARE ALLOWED K9 L ' l: 1'- e