The High Court · 2025

?l I lniu,,.rrru Goud, S/o.Narayana Goud, aged 33 veers 26. R. Sririvar; Ooud, S/o.Narayrn" Corq ,gj;; ;;;1. 27- R-. Nara larr r3oud, S/o.Narayana Goud, aged 26 Vears fl,:;::;r.,,t. r,", of peddapur Virrrsu J R.iu"r?"il"larr, sr,r"riupel Districr CMP. NO :821,1 OF 2002 ...RESPOI!DEIVTS/CLAIMANTS Petition lntk:r Section_151 .cPC praying that in the circr.mstances stated in the affida\'rt frt=o ;n of the peiitio;, ihe U,gr, CoL rt may be pleased to grant stay of ll lurther- proceedingi including the exec,rtror of Decree and judsmenr passt:d in o p r'io.rocoi i6g'o'iri"iz6lr-rooo on rhe fire of senior Civil Judge, Siangz reddy, pending airp".rf of if-re Counsel.for the l,grpellant "rooor, -"ior" ,pp"rt : Gp FOR App=ALl; Counsel for thc, R<.spondent Nos.i, 3 to g, 10 to 13,15 to 27 : SRI M. VENK/\TRrI\M REDDy The Court delivrrr,:J the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILT AND EADA THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTITETIRUMALADEVI APPEALSUIT NO .3708 o F 2003 DGMENT: (Per Hort'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This appeal, under kction 54 of the Land Acquisition Act' 1894 (for short,'the Act'), is filed aggrieved by the order and decrce' dated26-07.2000, passed in O'P'No'108 ot1996by the learned Senior Civil fudge, SangareddY (for short 'the reference Court')

2.HeardthelearnedGovernmentPleaderforAppealsappearlng for the aPPellant' It is the case of the appellant that land admeasuring 3. Ac.Zi]}_guntas situated at Peddapur Village' Sadasivpet Mandat' Medak District, belonging to the respondents was acquired by the Government for the PurPose of construction of treatment plant for gtavity main from Singoor Dam to Peddapur under M'W'S'S'' pursuant to the notification' dated 2OJ/^'1985' issued under Section a(1) of the Acl The Land Acquisition Officer' after conducting a detailed enquiry, passed Award' dated 07'M'1986' fixing the market value{or the subiect tand at Rs'6'1ffi/- Per acre' Not satisfied with o",:5?df.,";&i , the samr:' tll: respondents sought reference, under s eetion 1g of the Act, for r:'nhancement of compensation and the same was numbered as subjrri: rl. p.No.10g of 1996. The reference Coart, oid.eimpugned order, dateci 26.07.200A, has enhanced the mar:,ket value to Rs.14,000,/- Der acre, without appreciating any rlf the contentions raised by the appellant. 4 f.e;rrne<l Government pleader for Appeals appcaring for the appellant harl contended that the Land Ac<luisition Officer has rightly fixe,d the market value for the subject Iand at tris.6,l0D/_ per acre, but the reference Court, without assigning irny reasons, has enhanced the market value to Rs.lA,O[O/_ per acre. Therefore, appropriate orrlers be passed in the appeal by settir.g aside the impugned orckr., dated Z6.O7.2O0O,and allow the apPesl. 5. This Crrrr..t; having considered the said submirrsiorls, is of the 'iev" that the reference Court has enhanced the market value of drc r;rrbject land by retying upon tht: or.der passed in o'P'No'605 r'f r!)gg and barch by the learned AdditiorLar Disfrict Iudge' sang;arc'lcr'y The reference Court observed that the lands considered 3 A(S,J & ETD'J A.S.No.3?o8 of 2oo3 covered under O.P.No'605 of 1988 and batch and the subiect land were acquired by the very same notification' Therefore' the reference Court was justified in enhancing the market value of the subject land to Rs.14,000/- Per acre' by retying on the order passed in O.P.No.605 of 1988 and batch by tI* learned Additional District |udge, Sangareddy. Therefore' this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, dated 26'07'2000' AccordinglY, the aPPeal is dismissed. There shall be no order 6 as to costs. Miscellaneous Apptications' if any' pending in this appeal shatlstandclosed. sD,_ M.%tfr-ir$t$t lrrRuE coPYll SECTION OFFTCER ak. (v{ith records) f Tebnga na at e at San9 areddY is, High D'rstrict Court for the State o dy, Advocate [OPUCI Red To, ivit Judg enior C e G.P. for Appea CC Tl OU Hyderabadl riM CtoS D Copies Venkatram 1 The S 2. Two 3- One C 4. Two C PIP/PSL HIGH COUITT DATED:1 Z,ttl2lZOZs (2 drafts) JUDGMENTT+Oggpga AS.No.3708 ,rf 2003 /;r-.+:: rRl-r I i1 t -t-

13. t,,1i125 + -r z. t, DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT CC'STS. -.irjas;il@l-E-r--- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT NO: 3708 0F 2003 Between: Government of A.P, thlough the Special Deputy Collector (L A ) Singoor Project' Sangareddy ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AND 'l . Kodur Shivaiah, S/o-Mallaiah Z. VaAtaVithalaiah S/o tritallaiah (Died) per L'Rs (C| 15 lo 17) 3. Vadla VeeraswamY, S/o-Ramaiah 4. Vadla Chiranjeevulu, S/o-Ramaiah 5. G. Manemma, Wo-Gangaiah 6. Vadla Yadaiah, S/o.Lachmaiah 7. Yadla Brahmaiah, S/o.Buchaiah 8. Anjaiah, S/o.Buchaiah s. l.lut Vun, (died), S/o.Balaji (Died) per L'Rs 18 to 22 1 0. Brahmaiah, S/o.Buchaiah 1'1. AnjaneYulu, S/o.Buchaiah 1 2. KhaiamiYa, S/o-lsmail 1 3. Mallagoud, S/o.Balagoud ia. Nrryr"nrgord S/o.Balagoud (Died) per-L Rs (C| 23 to Cl 27) 15.Vadia Susheela, Wo.Vittalaiah' aged 60 years 16.Vadla Krishnaiah, S/o.Vittalaiah, aged 40 years 17.Vadla Prabhu, S/o-Vittalaiah, aged 22 years 18. Smt.sharadamma, Wo.Narayana, aged 70 years '1 9. Krishna Swamy' S/o. Narayana, aged 45 years 20. Narsimulu, Sio.Narayana, aged 30 years 21. Ramulu. S/o.Narayana, aged 26 years 2l.Laxman, S/o.Narayana , aged 23 years i5. n. Snirrr*a, Wio-late Narayana Goud' aged 54 years Z+.R. nnantnram Goud, S/o Narayana Goud' aged 35 years' ZS. n. nnfr*Vrlu Goud, Sio Narayana Goud' aged 33 years ZO. n. Sri'nirri Goud' S/o.Narayana Goud, aged 30 yeais zi. n r'latat',rri Goud, S/o Narayana Goud, aged 26-years All are resident of peooapt-ilvillage of Reienue Mandal' Sadasivpet' District Medak "'RESP.NDENTS/.LAIMANT. Appeal frl,;6 ,,.0", :::t,_ol_ 54 of Land Acquisrtion A.ct or tB)4 against the Order and Decree .tahr, j ?6 OZ .2OOo pr;;;';; 6irij" , ou of 1s:)6 o r the fite of the court of the Senir>r (lr./ I Judge, SrngrruOdy, MuJ"f tltri"t This appeal comin:t o.t for,,hearing and upon perusing the groutrds :f appeal, the Judgment and De,;ree of the Lo,ier C;;;i;;"Jil; materiar pat)ers in the appear ' "oi and upon h,,a.ino the "rs;;;i; nprjerr", Advocate for the Anperlnt and of sri "n,, ventatra"m Reorty, ,\dvr cate ior the Respondent Nos r 3,c 8. 10 to 13, 15 toii"""''""' ^ c p This Court doth Crrcer;rrrd Decree as follows; 1 . That the Apperal ll rit filed by the Appellants be and hereby is disrrissed; and 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPYII To, 1 2 3 lhe lelior Civ, .rL cge at Sangareddy District Meda CCs to tre C,. r. for Appeils, H,S; C;;;i;;;; .t.wo ' ' Hyderabad[OU tl Two CD Copies PSL SD/. M. RAIVIANA KRISHNA JOINT ITEGISTRAR i1 l\ .'-----)? i Sscrro^l oFFtcER k! State of 1 elan gana at I l i / I l l l I (2 drafts) HrGH COtrRT DATED:12ltl1l,t2021 DECREE AS.No.3708 of 2003 DISMISSING T'I.{E APPEAL WITHOUT COISTS.