The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 1013 days in filing the present Appeal IA NO: 3 OF 2024 PetitionunderSectionl5,lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent herein to pay the enhanced amount along with all statutory benefits granted b y the Reference Court vide orders dated 1i t12t2l1g in L.A.O.P,No .485 of 2011 to the Petitioner pursuant to the orders passed in Special Leave petition b earing SLP(C) Nos.3150_3 151t2023 and SLP(C) No '16'lB1 of 2OZ3 by the Su preme court. LAAS NO:25 oF 2024 Appear fired under section 54 0f Land Acquisition Act of .1gg4 against the order and Decree dated 17t12r2018 in L.A.O.p. No. 48g ot 20110n the fire of X',r Additionar District and sessions Judge-cum-M.V. Act, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Between:

1. M/s Jayabheri pror Hi{":li.tiexJi.#:,i'["h,:l,f if ,'J,,xi,:,!",i,1",,i;;5f ' $ilil!I'iaq?i'-U:' t*il3l,y"X,T Masa nti. Mad hava Ra o, ag-ed Hyderabad-500 obs. rerrngrn, sirt.i "" ''- r'+' l-rlm Nagar, Jubilee' Hills, 3. Maganti Ram Mohi "ha:i"g"fr"?:T,"#si:x-in':T,,5"^?"3iii3,g'[fl ^:i% n3t?,8:,%1il: ii"yfi ]3:;#n#.36 '[i:nx?o?t?,?[ii3a,'ii,ir:f fi ]fi i'fi ]r3lx?;5-%%%33.1?ffi "3;,'"r:r3".. ...APPELLANT/CLATMANT AND State of Telanoana f HMDA, NanakirrnrlS:n?'o"tg!:'E| Dv collector (L A ), unit-vll, oRRP, IA NO: 30F 2024 ...RESPONDENT/REFERRING OFFICER Petition under Sectlon i 5i CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent herein to pay the enhanced amount arong with a, statutory benefits granted by the Reference court vide orders dated 17_12-2018 in L A O-p No 4gg of 2011 to the petitioner pursuant to the orders passed in Speciat Leave petition bearing SLp(C) Nos.3150- 3151t2023 and SLp(C) No.'16181 of 2023 by the Supreme Court. A NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay ol 1749 days in filing the present Appeal Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Harender Pershad, Senior Counsel Counsel for the Respondents: Smt. D. Madhavi (SC FOR HMDA) The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA I.A.NO. o20F.2O24 IN/AN D L.A.A.S.NO .24 0F 2024 AND I.A.NO. 02 0F 2024 IN/AND L.A.A.S.No.25 oF 2024 COMMON JUDG MENT: lper Hort'bl. .Sn Justr:e r\bhtnatrcl Kumar Shttuill) Both these appeals are b€ing disposed oi by way of this common judgment, as the issue rt scd in thesc appeals is one and the same

2. Heard Sri Harender pershacl, Iearnecl Senior Counsel for the appellant(s)/ cJaimant(s) a,d Smt D.M:rclha'i, learned Stancling Counsel for the responclent (s). 3: Both ti-re appeals :rre filed trJ rrrg rriIh a r]t:lav application. It has been contended th:lt the issur: rlLisccl ilt Il]c prcrsent appeals is squarely cov.^red bv the Judqnrenr ol:r [)ir.rsion Bench ot- this Court in LAAS.No.73 cf 2O 19 trr-rcl IJarcl.r, dateci 2g.Og.2022, wherein this Court was pleasecl to r'nhan<:e lhe r:ompensation tn respect of the acquired lands ( here i; r to Rs. I ,3J,O0.OOO/ (Rupees one crore thirty five lakhs onl-y) per acre, The appellan L(s)/ claimant (s) lancl u,us rrlso accluircci for the verl same purpose and in pLlrsLtirnce ol thr. r.er,, s:rme Notilication as in LAAS.No.73 ol 2019. It is lurther srrtrnriLLr.d bv thc counsel that AKS,] & ETD,] 2 the appeal could not be hlcd in time due to shortage of funds for payment of Court Fee and due to unloreseen circumstances including the Covid- 19 [)andcmic' the appellants could not make arrangemcnts for Lhc requisite funds for payment of Court Fecs' Lrarned counscl hzrcl lurthcr conlended that the delay may be condoned, subler:L t() imposing appropriate costs on the appellant(s) / claimant(s) Learned counscl lor Lhe respondent(s) had contended that +. the claimant(s) wcrc zru'are of pendency of L A A S'No 73 of 2019 and batch. The)' ncrc rlot diligent enough in approaching ',-he Court.Therefore,thoughtheissueraisedinthepresentappeals is squarely covcred br thc judgn're nl in L A A S No T3 of 20 19 and Lratch. dared 2a Og )O)), thc delay cannot bc condoned'

5. This Court havrng considerecl Lhe rival submissions made by the parties, is oi tl-re considcred view that the issue raised in the present appeals is squarelv covered by the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Courl in LAAS No T3 of 2O19 and batch' daLed 28.09.2O22, as the appellar-rt(s)/ claimant(s) land was also acquired in pursuatlce of the vcry same Notifica iion and for the very same purpose Therclore' this Court is of lhe considered vieu' that the claiman[s are also el-rtitled for the benefit of orders passed in LAAS.No.73 of 2019 and batch' dated 28 'O9 '2Q)) anf, tlrc :' AKS,] & ETD,J compensation in respect of lhe sLrbjcct :rcquirecl land is enhanced to Rs. 1 ,35,00,000/ - per acre.

6. The issue in respect of conrloning thc clela,r. rs concerned. i[ is squarely covered b_y the JuclgmcnL rcndercd by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Ningappa Thotappa Angad.i Vs. Special Land Acquisition ofJicer and Another r, n,hcrein the Hon,ble Supreme Court, considering the jssuc ir.r conclonrng the delay of large extent of time, was pleascd to condr.ine rhe delay of 292g days on the grouncl that the claimants thercrn u,ere also identicallv situated to that of other land losers. '1. In LAAS.No.24 ot 2024, rherc is a cle,lav of LOl3 days in filing the appeal and the Court F.ee pa_valtle as disclosed from the petition is Rs 24,66,446/-. In LAAS.No.25 or ?024, Lrrerc is a dcrav of 1749 days in liling the appeal ancl rhc CoLrrL t..ce pal.able as disclosed from the petition is Rs.23,07,.r56r -. The reas,ns stated by the petrtioner that he courd not arrangc rbr thr: Court Fee in time due to shortage of funds and r:hallengcs posed by Lhe Covid_ 19 Pandemic- are opincd [o be sufficir:nt (.:rLrse lo condone the aloresaid clelay rn firing the appcar Therercrre , in vreu, or. the rar,r., Iaid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Courrt in Ningappa Thotappa Angadi's case (supra), the dela-l is c,.ortdoned, subjcct fo the '(zozo) rs scc sos 4 AKS,J & ETD,I condition that thc appellant(s)/ claimant(s) shall pay t Rs.10,0O,00O/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) to the respondenl-HMDA and Rs. 10,00,000/ - to the Legal Services Authorlly, within a period of eight (8) weeks from thc date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear lh:rt the appellan t(s)/ claimaut(s) would not be entitled to interesL lor tlre rlelay periocl rn preferring the appeals. g. Accordingly, both the LA.No.02 of 2024 in L.A.A.S.No.24 of 2024 and I.A.No.O2 of 2024 in L.A.A.S.No.25 of 2024 are allowed and L.A.A.S.Nos.24 and 25 of 2024 are disposed of enhancing the compensation for the subject acquircd land to Rs- 1,35,oo,00o/- per acre. No cost s. Miscellancous [)cliLions pcncling, if an1 , shall stand closed. SD/- K. SRINIVASA.RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI N OFFICER To,

1. The Xlll Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-M.V- Act, Ranga Reddy Distfict, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad

2. One CC to Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Smt D Madhavi, (SC FOR HMDA) [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies VHigh N. I I i l HIGH COURT DATED: 20103t2025 I COMMON JUDGMENT+ DECREE lA NO: 2 OF 2024 IN/AND LAAS NO: 24 OF 2024 AND lA NO: 2 OF 2024 IN/AND LAAS NO: 25 OF 2024 ') c ( (r A52 U B 202[ t o ut cuE r) *i' * DISPOSING OF BOTH LAAS WITHOUT COSTS $ iA"