Rondla Thitrupathi Reddy, (Died) per L.Rs v. The Land Acquisition Officer

BRIEF FACTS -lhe Land to an cxrent of Ac.3.34 gts. in S Ntr Ir)2 o1' Dharmapur Village, Dharmasagar. Mandal of Waran,r r Distlict rvas 2 acquired for the purpose ol constt'uction and suhtttergcttce ol a check darr across stream near Dharrnrpur Villeqc of Dharmasagar N4andal II. NOTIFICATION AND r\WARI):

4. A notification undct sectiolt l(l) ol tllc r\ct uas publishcd on

29.10.2001, pursuant thereto, ttoticcs undct'sections 9(l)and l0 olthe Act. were issued. An arvard enqtrirl rvas thctcafter corlductcd itl accordance with Iaw

5. Subsequently, the l-\O passcd rrr anar.d drtcd 18 06 1001. lLring the tnarket value of thc nccltrircd Iancls at [{s. 1 (r 900i - nL'l acle' Not bcing satisfied with the saicl contl.t..nstltion. tllc claittlatrts sottllht a relerence under Section l8 ol thc Act, rihiclt calllc to bc t.lttt]lbcr.-d as O.P. No. 63 of 2002 belore lhc Reltrtne c Cotrtt III. POINT FOR CONSIDI.,ITA-TION I}T,FOIIf, TIIE REF ERENCE COURT: 6 The Reference Court, upon the plcadings, and rraterial placcd belore it, framed the following Point lor determinatiorr "Whether the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate, il so, what is the reasonable market valuc to be fixed for the acquired tand?" F 3 I\/. EVIDENCE:

7. 'l'o substantiate theil clailn fbr highel co r rcn:;ation. the clairnants cxami:rc-d I)Ws I and 2 and got rnarkcri I r. Al (ccrtilred cogrl o1'a sale dccd), on thcit behall.

8. On behall' o1' the respondent-State, RWI rvr, cxarrinetl and f:xhibits B I and Bl w'ere marked \,. FINDINCS OF TIIE REFERENCE COUR'I

9. l'he learncd Relerence Court, upon appreciatior .rl'tlre oral and docurncntar"- cr idencc. obselved in the impugned , r't -'r thar rhouglr PW I clainrcd to have bccn caming a net income ol' .s.2t).000,'- per acre. per arururn fron'r comrnercial crops such as t rtton. ch illies, banana. ancl tobacco. no documentary proof' sucl' as crop vield records. sales lcccipts, or accounts was produced to sL'rstantiate such clairn. L.ikclvise, I)W2 adniitted in cross-examination r ut I:r. A l, thc salc deed relicd upon by the appellants pertained to \ ashkal Village and not to Dhaunapur Vitlage, where the acquired lnntl: are situated.

10. Neverthcless, the learned Reference Court took ote olthc fact that the acquiled lands were fertile, irrigated, and cap rble ol raising I 4 commercial crops, which indicated their h igher potential value compared to dry lands. The learned Ref'ercnce Court also found that agriculture w'as the only sourcc of livclihood fbr the claimants. and that the acquisition of their lands had deprived thern ol their means of sustenance I 1. The learned Reference Court lurther noted that taking rnto account the fertility, potentiality, and locarion of the lands, as n,ell as the compensation fixed by Civil Courls ir.r similar acquisitions, the' value determined by the LAO was on the lower sidc. T'herctbre, thc leamed Reference Court found it just and reasonable to enhance the market value of the acquired Iands frorn Rs.16,900/- to Rs.22.500/- per acre.

12. The Court further directed payment of statutory bencfits under the Act, namely 30% solatium,lZYo additional market value fiom the date of 4( 1 ) Notification till the date of award or possession (whichever earlier), interest at 9%o per annum for the first year from the date of possession and, l5%o per annum thereafter till realization, together with interest on solatium and additional rnarket value. ,y 5

13. Conscquentll , the Reference was allowed enhar :ing the market value of tlie acquirerl lands liom Rs. 16,900/- per acr'( to Rs.22,500/- per atcre

14. Being aguris,cd by the order dated 16.04.2()( passed by the Referencc Cotrrl. thc claimants have preferred the prc;cnt AppeaI for turther enhancerrrent VI. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTTBS: A) Conlenlions of lhe Appellanls (Claimants): I -5. 'l he Lcarncd counsel tbr the appellants cor t :nded that the Ref-erence Court erred in not placing reliance up: r Ex. A 1 , the certifled copl oi'the sale deed bearing Document I o.I53 of 1994 dated 09.05.1994. under which one Acre of lanl was sold for Rs.1,42,500/-. lt is turther contended that the accp ired lands are abLrtting and sirrilar in nature and fertility to the lanc covered under Ex. A1, and are situated close to the National High ray connecting Hyderabad and Warangal. Hence, the Reference Col 1, erred in not fixing the malket value of the acquired lands in acc,r dance with the rate reflected under Ex. A 1 . 6

16. The leamed counsel fbr the appellants further contended that the Reference Court ened in not considering documentary evidence adduoed by the respondent i.e., the Award under Ex.82, s'herein the prevailing market value was shown as Rs.90,000/- per acre. It is urged that the Reference Court ought to have adopted the said ratc while dctern-rining compensation, instead of fixing a much lesser value. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that thc Ref'erence Court failed to appreciate the documentary and oral evideuce available on record, which clearly establishes that the acquired lands were o1' high potential and capable of yielding substantial incotne

17. lt is further contend that the Reference Court tailed to consider that the land or.r,ner was earning an annual net income of Rs.25,000,'- per acre after deducting cultivation expenses, which de rlronstrates the high lertility and commercial potential of the acquired lands. Thc appellants further contend that the market value should have becn fixed at Rs.1,50,0001 per acre in accordance with the evidence on record. The appellants also contend that the Reference Courl erred in not awarding interest on all components of compensation, including 7 solatium and additional urarket value, thereby rerLr t rng the award inequitable and contrarv to lat.

18. On tl.rc basis o1- thc afbrcsaid subrnissions. thr: I :amed Counsel for the appellants has plal,cd that, there being merit ir the appeal, the sarne may be allorved, b1' further enhancing the comp r sation B) Contentions of the Respondenl (State/LAO):

19. Thc lcar-n.-d (loverlrnent Pleader for Appea: appearing on behatf ol the l{espondent, contended that the LAt- had fixed the market r.alue at lls.16,900/- pcr acl'e, after a detailec inspection and consideration of the phlsical features, potentialitr fertility, and existing conclitions of the acquired lands, including t1r registered sale transactions of the sar-nc village foi the preceding, t ree years. The fixation, it u,as sulrmitted, was based on objective rssessment and available sale statistics, ensuring that the compensali ,n reflected the lair market value ol the lands at the time of acqrr sition and was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.

20. It is further contended that the appellants failel to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim for ,nhancement or I 8 t fbr compensation towards commercial crops as alleged in their clairn petition. Hencc. the market value fixed by the LAO as enhanced bl the lean'red Ref-erence Court is reasonable, as such, the appellants are not entitled lor any enhancement of compensation and there being no merit in the prcsent appeal, the same deserves to be disrnissed. VII. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION: 21 . Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respectire parties and having caretully examined the material placed on lecord, the tbllowing points arise fbr deterrnination in this Appeal (, ll'hether the Reference Court was justified in fi-ring the market value o/ the acquired lands at Rs.22,500/- per ,{cre, or v'hether the ctppellants are entitled to further enhancentent itt view o.[ the evidence adduced under Exs.A ] and B2'/ (ii) Whether the Reference Court failed to properlv appreciate the docuntentary and oral evidence relatin.g kt the fertility, potentiality, and income-yielding capacitl, of the acquired lands? (ii, To what relief, if any, are the claimants/appellants entitled.' f 9 VI[. COMPARA TIVE STATEME,NT OF COMPE r SAT'ION:

22. For ploper appreciation. thc comparative chart of c )mpensation, as arvarded by the LAO and as cnhanced by the Releii -rce Court, is tabulated as undet Extent Compensation Awarded by LAO (Rs. per acle ) Compensation E,nhanced by Reference Cour (Rs. per acre) Difference (llnhanced Award) (Rs. per acre) Ac. 3.34 gts Rs 16,900/- Rs. 22.500/- Rs.5,6001

23. Fron-r the abovc tabulation, and upon a careful turl plaisal of the evidcnce, it is thc contention of the appellants that 're I-AO had adopted an undull'conselvative approach in fixing the ir rrket "'alue Rs. 16,900/- pcr Acre. rvittrout properl1' appreciating tltrr rale instances of proxirnate period and the potential of the acquirt t lands. The appellants assert that Ex.Al. a registered sale deed date I 09.05.1994, clearly dernonstrates that similar lands in the vicinit.'' rvere sold at Rs.1,42,500/- per Acre and that Ex.B2, the award relir: upon by the respondent itself shows the prevailing market value at lt ;.90,000/- per Acre. The appellants, therefore, contend that the R: erence Court ened ir-r granting only a marginal enhancement to Rs.22, 00/- per acre, 10 ignoring the f'ertility, irrigational nature and high commercial potential of the acqu ircd Iands

24. In thc light ol thc above, the cr-ucial question that arises lor consideration is u,hether the Reference Court was justified ln restricting the enhancenrent to Rs. 22,5001- per acre, despite the clear evidentiary support under Exs.AI and B2 indicating highcr markct value. [t must therefbre, be exarnined whether the Reference court failed to asslgn due s,cight to fertility, potentiality and advanrageous location of thc acquired lands and whethcr the appellants are entitled to a turthcr enhancer.nent of compensation consistent with the prevailing market value as relened in the contemporaneous sale fransactlons. IX. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

25. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel lor the Appellants/Claimants and the leamed Govemment Pleader for Appeals appearing for the Respondent. We have also examined the entire record of the case, including the pleadings, the oral evidence of PWs I and 2 and RW I and 6 11 documentary cvidence in thc forrn of'Ex. Al, as rve[[ : I Exs. Bl end 82 r'elied upon bv thc LAo

26. At the ()utsct. it is not in dispute that tlre ,r quired lands, adrneasuring .\c.3.34gts., wcre acquired tbr th,: purpose of construction ol a chcck dam pursuant to a notilicaticr issued under Section 4( l) o1' the Act datcd 29.10.200 l . l-he clairn:r rts contendcd that thc Rcl'erence Court crred in not placine rcliance rl:r rn Ex. Al, the cert; fled copy of sale dced l)ocr-rment No. I 53 t I 1994 dated

09.0-5.1994. Lrnder uhich Onc Acre ol land irr Nashl. I rillage \\'IIS sold fbr Rs.1,42,5001. [t is their casc that thc ac<1Lr :ed lands are adjacent to the lands covcrcd r-rnder Ex. A I , sirnilat i . fertility and nature. and are advantagcous11, situatcd near Natri ral Highway No.20l connccting llydcrabad and Warangal. - r:e1bre, it is contended that the Ilef'erence Clouft ought to have ,l termined the rnarket value in consonance with the rate reflected under Ex. A I 21 . The appellants/claimants furlher contended that ne Reference Court ignolcd the Arvard i.e. Ex. 82 trled by the res1,r ndent, which indicated that the prevailing market value at the time 'f acquisition was Rs.90,000/- per acre. [t is urged that despite the sai I documentary L2 evidencc being on record, the Reference Court enhanced the value only to Rs.22,500i- pcr acre. which does not truly represent the prcvailing market valuc ol- the acquired lands. Having regard to the material placed on record, it is evident that while Ex. 82 itsell reflects a substantially higher market value, the Ref-erence Court adopted a conservative approach, resulting in flxation of compensation ata lower rate. Considering the comparative sale instance under Ex. A I and the proven f'ertility and potentiality ol'the lands, this Court finds that the rate of I{s.12.-500/- per acre detennined by the Reference Coufl substantially undcrvalues thc acquired lands. -l'heretbre, contention of the appcllarrts seeking further enhancement is well- foundcd, and the claiur lirr flxation of compensation at a higher rate is j usti fied. 28 It is pertincnt to note that Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, I 894 categorically speci fies the matters to be considered in determining compensation, and reads as under: " 23. Maltcrs to bc tonsidercd in determining compensotion ( I ) ln determining thc amounl of contpensation ttt be awarded for land ucquired under this ,4ct. the Court shall take inlo cons ideralion first, the market value qf the land at the date of the publication of the [noti/icution uruler seclirtrt 1, .sub-section (l)J [Substituted by lct 38 d 1923, Scction 7,.for " declaratiott relating thereto uncler .rt'clitn 6". f , 6t 13 \at.'ondl_t. thc, LlLutul4Lt .str.;tLtined hl the pe rson it t reLt.\on (tl lhc tokitry oJ ctttl stln(ling crop.t ot lrees \ l on lhc lurtl r tlr tirnt' ol tht ('olle clor.s taking pt'.tstst i thirilt. rlu tlutnt,gt' (if unl t .\utloinc(l b.t thc lxrson t ,, tht tintL, o/ Ila, ( t)ll(Ltot s tukint psscs:io of the ld,t ; rtf :t,vritt.tl rtttlt ltnrl fiom lti.s oth<'r ltunl. lbtttltl_r. tlr duntugt' (if utll strstLtitted bt'thc per'.sort ,.t tltL' tint ttl tltt' ( rtllcctors lukint! possessiotl of the ldn,/. of lhc ottlui.rttion inluriouslr ul/ct.ting his otlvr yopt, I ttr imntotuhla. in tut-tt olhcr ntLtt ler. ot his eurnings: li/thlr. 1l itt totttL,tltrntt, rt/ tha trcquisitiotl ol rhe ( (-.ollcctor. the prr.totl intarestcd is tontpelletl io: rttiLfutr,, rtr 1:slutt' of hu.tinr.rs. tht Ictt.sonuhlc etpct int ilcntul trt:;trth thanga, untl ' :i.ttltl.r tJr ittntu,qt (il un)/ h()tlu.fiJa rt.sulting./iom ,l t tlr ltrolit.s rtl tlr lund ltct.,reen tha tinr of thc puhltt r rlt't lttntlttttt ltklLt .\cLlio 6 und tltt, timc ol lhe OollL: 1tr t t.sa.s.s ir t rt rt/ tltt, lund l(l-.1) Irt ultlittott /tt thc ntarkct volue of thc lo'r ltntvtded th( ('ourt shull in eyerv case trvard t coltulutLl ut tllt ruta oJ n'elv: p(r tentu l per dlhl,tj nturket vttluc lbr thc parirxl contmancirtg on orul fiont , lht'luhltctttion ol thc notilicution untler section J. .rtth x in ,(sl)(,Lt ttf .suclt lurnl b tlu Lltttt ol the ay,urtl o,l'lhe , tht tfutt, r tf ttrkittl. ltrtsst,s:ion o/ lltc ltnd. whicluycr i.s , , litltluntttiott ln totnltutittg tlrc puiotl rcfirred lo tr \c(tion. tutr. ltarrod or periol.s du ing whiclt the pr r,t - lltt, ttctlut.titiort ol tlrc lantl tcra held up on uccount o/ | injttntlictn ttt lJt order of'utt.y (-ourt sltull be exchrdct. b.t .1tt 6l ol 19,\J. Se c.tion l5 (w.e../. )1.9. 19,\l.l.l 'tste.l, b7, 'it may be r thareoJ: 't.c.\led. al ntovublt tutlgP. hi.t ' (il ury,) 'tulton 0.f ;on of lhe t,.s li*ing tts uhot'c ! unu)unl tott.tuch ht Llulc of rhis;ub- ling:.lbr 1, .\l( i or lln.serted t2) ln adLlititttr to tha marke t rulue ol rhe luttl os obotL. rtroyidetl. lhe ('ourr :lrull in every case ov,ard a sunt o/'[thirty ] t Lentuml fSuh:titurad hr -!ct 68 o/ 1981. .\ection 15. ybr ' ttreen par c(,nluttt" (r e ../. 21.9. 1981).1 on such market ulua in considan ion ol Lompulsory natu e of lhe ocquisition 74

29. 'l'he Honourable Suprcmc Court in Kapil Mehra v. Union of Indiat laid, dou,n the method ol'determination of the rnarket value and it was observed as under. '' 10. .llurket I ulue: lir.rt que.rtion thul emerges is whul u,oultl ha tlrc rcu.;onahlt, nrurkat ruluc +t'hich the actluired lutcl.s ara capuhlc tt/ lcrching ilhile lixing the markcl valut of lhe ucquirad luntl. tlte l.und lcquisition Oflicer is ruluired to kccp in rnintl rhe./blloting /actors. (i) existing gcographical situation o.l the lund: /ii) existing use oJ thc lund: (iii) ulrctd)' utuilublt udvrntage.s. likc proximity lo !\lolionul or ,Slutt, llighn ul' or roud andtu- daveloped arr:u und (ir) tnurkct yolrr of othcr land situated in the :;umc k)culilyiyillugeiurut or udiuccut or vcry nedr lo thc acquiretl lund. I l. I hc .;lutdttrd mctlncl ttl dcternrination ol the murkel valut o[' ant ucttuircd lund i.s [y the wlucr eyuluulinu tha lurul on llte tk t o/'t'uluut ion publicatiott of nolirtcalion Under Stclion l( I ) . o/' the ,4ct. dcting us a hypothetical purcha,rcr t,illing to purchust the land in open murket al lhe prcwriling pricc on tlrut du.y. .fi'ont a seller willing fo scll such lttnd ul u reo.sorutblc price Thus. the murkcl vulue is detcrnitrctl vtth rtfercncc to the open nturkcl solc of tonpuruhlc lur in tlta ttc igltltour hottl. h.t u v'illing sclltr kt a rilling hurer. on or helore thc dutc o-f preliminart, noli.ficrtliott. tts thul vould giv u.fhir indicati0n of lhc murket rulua. '

30. Though Ex. Al pertains to Nashkal village and not Dharmapur village, the evidence on record establishes that thc lands are in close proximity, approximately within a distance of 0.5 to I kilometre and share similar characteristics, such as fertility and capable of yielding commercial crops. Therefbre, Ex. Al constitutes a valid and reliable '1zots'lzscczoz 15 corrlrarati\/c cxclnplar'lbr detcnnining the market val rc. 1'ccordingl1,, this ('ourt lroids rhat l;x. A I is a rclcvant and depenc i rle indicator lbr tlrrn!r thc prol)el conlpcrlsation rate i I. ln linion of India v. Hurinder Pal Singh 't td ()thert', the I{onoural,lc Su;rre'me Court has [aid dou,n the prir r iple. wherein it \\ AS Ircld thrrt lands situated in dittbrent vi[[ages. but tbnninq a contigrr()rrs or contparable area! can be treated as a :i rgle rrnit lbr thc []ulpose of'llxirr!r. nratket valuc. -lhe Courl obscrycd r lirUor.vs: l ..i ll r: luyc careJiill t'on.sidere d tht suhntis , Itlr,i/ ttl rlrL, t t,.;lttttive purties und ve sae no fttstificutt t ,r itl, ilr, ,;Lt t.\ton of tlrc l)iti.;iort Bentlt ol tlrc I'ttnlah , I liglt ( ott,t thit lt itr our yitw, took d pragmali. ap? ., tlrc tturkLr ruluL of the lutLls lbrning the subjett-t rtttluititiott nto(t:clings at u unifbrm rute. From lhe ;, llk, r'(tt itr Llrrt'.stiott. it rtppaur.s to us thot vhile the lar,, tu.( \tuttttt'Li itt liv,: Lli//crcnt rilluges. thc1, tun be rt.,r t t)n(' .\in.:lt trttit litlt little lo cltxtse bet$een one slrettl trutili,,r l lr (ntirt urao i.s in u slugt, of tlevelopnt,'nl ur :, r l//rrg.,' ,r,..' , ttltultlt of hcing Llavlopttl in the sunt i t luttl: crtr'Lltri.tt'rl in Kulu GhanuPut y'here the tnarka ut'qttirL,d ldtkl.\ va: fisaLl ut tt uniJbrm rate of Rs 10.a0() 1 l)irr.tittn litnth rl tJr l'urlab und I larl,ana High C.'otu.t , bc'ltittq ntL tlt ttl f?utut c.\ tntul no coge nt grounLl hus been mudt' ,t t v tlh I ltt' stttrtt'. ti yultution having regard to lhe locu.l tttt nttdL, t,n rh in.lirin,q ,: tch ltlon o1 in tt uc.tt ia tl rhc li[/ert tt :r ot t t. Tht' itc'ar dtd tlie 't'unt.\lutlc(.t to intt'rfe re

16. Jn otrr viev,, in the ab.sence of anv con,, rlporuneolt.t tloc'trrrtcttt 1|rc_ )14y'kct vtlue oJ the ac(:t uired lands qf illaye Kula Qrtaaqaa v'hi1h- t1,ere acoul'ed at the same time as th t ltnds in the 91fuy ljyg y1!!y1gc.s- lyts correulv tuken !! !'.1 te tmit o !: g the land.s rhe market volue of the lands compri t t datcrntittrtt ct:l-mutler of tlte atquisi[ion ttnx 't c lings undcr fornl4g.. rltq .yt!b) (200s) 12 scc s64 16 consideration. appeals ond thc), are all dismi.s.sed rithout ant ordet as lo costs" No interJ'erence is. theral'ora. callcd fbr in these

32. Applying the above principlc ro the lacts ol rhe instant case, this Court finds that although Lx. A I pertains ro Nashkal village and the acquired lands are situated in Dharmapur village, both the lands are adjacent, share similar nature and characteristics such AS fertility, irrigation facilities, and commercial potential.'[-he cvidence on record clearly establishes that the acquired lands tbrm part of the same "valuation belf' and are capable ol being pr,rt to identical agricultural and commercial usc. Therefbre. Llx. A I provides a valid and reliable comparative basis for deten-r-rining the Iair market valuc of the acquired lands

33. In addition, this Courl also takes judicial norice of the decision of Division Bench of this Courl rendered in G. Venkat Reddv v. The State of Andhra Pradeshr, wherein, rhe State, vide notification dated

29.05.1999, had acquired the land to an extenr of Ac.5.00 in S.No.46l of Raghunathpally Village, Zaffergadh Mandal, for the construction of the very same check dam near Dharmapur village. 'lhe LAO had initially fixed the compensation at Rs. 14,300/- per acre, however, ' L.n.e S No I248of2005decidedon2t l0l0l l I I t t I I I I ! i ! l l I 1 i i i I 1-1 upon seeking ref-elcr)ce, thc cornpensation vv,r enhanced to Rs.25,000/- i)er acre bv the Iteference Court ali.: considering the prcr, ailing rrarket rates. documentary evidence o1' c ornparative salc deeds, the natule and lbrtility ol thc lands. Ultimatcl. this Clourt in an appeal filed by the claimants/land owners, hac enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre along rvit[ lll the statutory bencflts on tiic basis o1 L.x.A I

31. 'l hcrefbrc. it is to be noted that the lands i,r Ilaghunarhpally r,"erc similar ir.r nature. productivity, and commercil.i potential to the lands in Dharnrapur village. Applying the above sairl reasoning to the prescnt case. this ('ourt finds that the lands acqtrir: I in Dharmapur village, atthough located in a difl-erent viltage, ar. contiguous to Nashkal villagc. abutting thc lands covered under hlx. A1, and possess cornparable characteristics such as irrigation lacilir :s, lertility and capacity lor raisinq commercial crops. Therefore, ,v applying the principle of conrpar-ative assessment laid down in G. "enkat Reddy's case (supra), this Court is of the view that flxati,r L of the market value of the prcsent acquired lands at Rs.1,00,0001 F( 'acre, would be 18 fair, reasonable, thereb-v'' ensuring unilbnnitv and parity compensation lor lands possessing similar ler:tility' and potential. X. CONCLUSION:

35. In view of the loregoing discussion. w.e tlnd that the lands acquired in Sy. No.229 of Dhannapuram village arL. conriquous to Nashkal village lands and are similar in all rclevant characteri stics, such as fertility. irrigation t-acilities, and potential firr raising commercial crops. The said [ands arc also acir.antaqeo us lv situated in close proxirnity to the National I{ighrvay connecting Hyderabad and Warangal. 'fhe comparative sale clccd marked as Ex. A I coLrpled with the preccdent set in G. Venkat Reddy's case (supra) conr.incingly supporls thc appellants' claim fbr enhancement- 'ftrc cnhancement of thc compensation to Rs.22,500/- per acre by the Rel-erencc Cour1, though an improvernent against the award passed by LAO, nevertheless it lailed to represent the actual market value having regard to the fertility of the land, income-generating capacity, and their proximity to developed areas and the National Highu'ay

36. In view ol the above circumstances, this Court holds that the true market value of the acquired lands, as on the date of Notification r I ! 19 undcr Section a(1) of the Act, should reasonalr. be flxed at Its.1.00,000/- per acre. as clainrecl by the appellants.

37. As regards the statutorr, benefits, appe[lants/c1:L lants shalL be entitled to solatiurn at 30oA and additional market vrLr rc at l2%o per annur fio rn thc date ol the notiflcation till the dat: o1' the au,ard, together rvith interest at 97o per annum for the first yeil fiom the date of takinq posscssion rnd 1596 Lrcr annlun thereafter ill the date ol realization, in accordancc rvith Secrions 23( l-A), 2.i(i: and 28 of the Act xt. IrESUt, t': 38 tn the light o1'Lhe lbregoing discussion, the app,r al tiled by the appellants/claiilants is allow-ed. enhancing the compi: sation for the acquired land l'rom l{s.22,500/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- 1 er acre. -fhe Claimants shall be entitlecl to ail statutory benefits per nissible under the Act, incluciing solatiurn, additional niarket value rnd interest as directed herein. Accordingli. the Appeal is allr wed. In the circumstances of tlre casc, there shalI be no order as to i )sts. 20 As a sequel. pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this Appeal shall also srand closed SD/. A.V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII To, SECTION OFFICER '1 . The ll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Waranoal. 2 one cc ro sri K L,kshmi r/;;;;;; ';i;;#i" 3 rworccs to Gp FoR AppiAiI',';[;;;;1;, the state of reransana topucl Karn,'Sl _ 4. Two CD Copies ry/ HIGH COURT DATED:1911112025 ,/t.' lt;.j'- lir: t+, -':-:-.. , i;,.{ I ;'f- :}... l$t n 1\$N .i.- 'i, i\ T .) ): .<.: I JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.S9 of 2011 I i I I I I I t ! i I i i i i l ALLOWING THE APPEAL 6 [34e4 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Between: L.A.A.S.No: 59 OF 2011 Rondla Thitrupathi Reddy, (Died) per L.Rs.

1. Rondla Ranga Nayaki, W/o late Rondla Thirupathi Reddy, Age:62 years, Occ: Nil,

2. Rondla Sangameshwara Reddy, S/o late Rondla Thirupathi Reddy, Age:48 years, Agriculture

3. Rondla Santosh Reddy, S/o late Rondla Thirupathi Reddy, Age:46 years, Agriculture All are R/o Dharmapur Village, Sharma Sagar Mandal, Warangal District. (Appellants 1 to 3 are brought on record as L.Rs vide.Court order dated 24- 01-2011 in LAASMP.No.1B92 of 2010) ...Appellants AND The Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal. ...Respondent Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 894 against the order and decree dated 16-04-2007 passed in O.P.No.63 ot 2002 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Lakshmi Manohar, Advocate for the Appellants and GP for Appeals, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants be and the same is hereby allowed, enhancing the compensation for the acquired land from Rs.22,5001 to Rs.'1 ,00,000/- per acre; - _--* =

2. That the appellants/claimants shall be entifled to permissible under the Act, including solatium @ 30% t value @12"/o per annum from the date of the notificatior That the appellants/claima nts are entifled to interest at l first year from the date of taking possession and @ 151i, tjll the date of realization; and That there shall be no order as to costs. 4 rll statutory benefits nd additional market ill the date of award; /o per annum for the )er annum thereafter SD/- A.!, ;.S.C.S.M. SARMA . OINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// onal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal i :CTION OFFTCER To, The ll Additi Two CD Co 1 2 Kan"-Sa hfi. l,/ HIGH COURT DATED:1911112025 DECREE LAAS.No.59 of 2011 ALLOWING THE APPEAL |l>