The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. GP for Appeals Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 : None appeared Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Sri S Venkatesh'rar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 : None appeared The Court delivered the following: = HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR STIAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.O9 of 2Ol7 JUDGMENT: (per Hott'ble Smt. Justice Tirurnala Deui Eada) 'lhis appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , (for short 'the Act') is prefe rred by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ieeja, Mahabubnagar Districl, aggrieved by the order and decrec dated 05.02.2009 passed in O.P.No.25 of 2003 by the leamed Senior Civil Judge at Gadri,al (hereinafter relerred to as 'the Rcference Court').

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred [o as they u,ere arrayed before thc Reference Court.

3. The fircts o[ the case ir-r bricf are that Lhe Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Ofhcer (LAO), Gadwal has acquired thc land to an extent of Ac.04-0ti guntas in Sy.No.518/2, situated at Uthanoor village of Ieeja Mar-rdal for providing house sitcs to 46 harrlans and 5 Economically Backward Classes o[ Uthanoor villagc. The notihcation under Section a(1) of thc Act was published in the Gazctte on 03.O3.1984. Alter conducting cluc enquiry, the LAO has passed the arvard on 28.03.1984 fixing thc market valuc (D Rs.4,25O/ pcr acrc. Aggrieved by the said 2 AKJ,J & ETD,] LAAS No.9 2017 award , the claimants have filed a petition for .c i:rence and the same was refcrred under Section 1g of the Act rv the LAO to the Senior Civil Judge at Gadrval.

4. 'lhe case of the claimants be fore the referu n,:e Court is that their lrrnd is very near to thc village and suitab c lbr house sitcs and that the5. uscd to raise commercial crops su:lt as grounclnut, chillies, cotton etc., and used to earrl a urlt lncome of Rs.20,00O/ - per acre and that their acquired liLnd has fertile black colton soil. The land is acquired for prov.dirrg l.rousc sites to harijans and 5 econonticalll, backward classcs of Uth:tnoor village. The claimants submitted that sincc the Ircnerrci:rries also are willing to construct their houses in th. acc.ired area, it is quite evident l.hat the land acquired is suitable fo:-lrousc siles.

5. The LAO has filed rcpl1, statemenr slating that the mandatory p.>visions follorved but admitter I hat Uthanoor 'r,ere village is adjacent Lo Ieeja and that the refercnce .r.urt cnhanced the market value for Ieeja lancls ancl the Hrgf Court further enhanced the market value but has denied that tlre land in the said case and in the present case are similar rr r n:rture and market value, thus, prayed to reject the claim. ,/" (-t 3 AKS,] & ETD,] LAAS No.9 2017

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Reference Court has framed the following point for consideration: "Whcther thc marke t valuc as fixed by the LAO rs not reasonabie? If yes, what is the reasonable market value?"

7. At the time of trial, the claimants have got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Dxs.A 1 to A2. On behalf of the respondent, Tahsildar, Ieeja got examined as RW1 and the award copy was marked as trx.B 1

8. Based on thc evidencc ort record, the Refcrence Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.72,0O0/- per acre, in addition to the statutory benehts. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the Mandal Revenuc Officer. Iccja Mandal, has preferred the present appcal.

9. Heard lhe submissions of the learned Government Pleader for lhe appellant and Sri S.Venkateswar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the reference Courl ought not to havc enhanced compensation and that the LAO has considered all the components and has awarded a just and reasonable amount towards compensation 4 AKS,] & ETD,] LAAS No.g 2017 ( and that there was no neccssity for the referenr:e Conrt to arvard more compensation. The land acquired is in a rernote village and has no potential for development and thercforc. h,: prl2pyscl 16 ss1 aside the award passed by the reference Court.

11. The learned respondents counsel, on thc olher hand, has submirted that the acquired land is suitable for l:r>usc sites and that is thc reason for acquisition to built houses, flrr t hc har.lans and the economically backwarcl classes. He frtrll-rcr subntiLted that on an earlier occasion the lancls n,ere acquit.cd front lceja Mandal, u,hich u,as adjacent to Uthanoor villagle, the reference Court has enhanced the market value and this High Court has further enhanced the same. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss thc present appeal.

12. Based on the above rival submissions, th s Court friLmes the follou.ing points for consideration: 1 2 3 Whether the claimants are not etrtitlecl for enhancement of compensation? Whether the order and decree of tht relerencc Courl need any interference? To \^,hat relieP 5 AKS,J & ETD,] LAAS No.9 2017

13. POINT NO. I: a) Ex.A1 is the certihed copy of the order in O.P.No.1980 of 1984 and Ex.A2 is the certi{ied copy of judgment in A.S.No.1760 of 1986 and batch on the file of this High Court. b) A perusal of Ex.Al rcveals that the relerence Court has enhanced the compensation to an extent of Rs.35,OO0/- per acre and the said lands u,ere acquired from [eeja Mandal. It is elicited from the counter of LAO and l'ris cviderrce that Iccja is adjacent to Uthanoor village and a perusal of Ex.A2 further reveals that against the order under Ex.A1, the LAO has preferred an appeal to High Court and in the said appeal, the High Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.56,25O/- per acre. c) The LAO was examined as RW I in this case and in his cross examination he sta[ed that the acquired land is suitablc for house sites. In the said acquisition procccdings which are the subject matter in Exs.Al and A.2 also the land was acquired for providing house sites to backvvard class people of Ieeja village. Thus, the purpose for the said acquisition in 1981 under Exs.A1 and 42 and the present acquisition is the same. The notification uqfler section 4(l) of the Act in the said case \ ras on 16.03.1979 \ and a perusal of the said order copy of the High Court under 6 AKS,J & ETD,] LAAs No.9 2017 Ex.A2 reveals that it was pleased to hold rhat :hc market value could be fixed at Rs.75,00O/- per acre and sinc,: the lancl rvas acquired for providing house sites, 1, f 4b area u.as excluderl and ultimately arrivcd at the market value of Rs.56,!)S0/ The same amount of compensation has to be awarded in thc prescnt case also as the acquired land is adjacent to the sa ic lancl ancl the purpose of acquisition is also the same. Thcre r _. a girp ol live ycars it.r belwee n thc two gazeLle notihcations i.e . -rnclcr Ex.A2 it is notified on 16.O3.1979, r,",hile in thc pr3scnt case the notificalion was published on 03.03. 19g4. d) In Ahaso,nul Hod.a u, State of Biharr, the Al)ex Court has held that I O7o market value has to be added rr hile arvarding compensation u,hen there is a time lag for a periori u,pto an vcar. e) I n vievv of the cl ted decision, the market ,.,a lue ltas to be enhanced by lOo/o every year. Therefore, observi tg Lhe saicl fatct lhe reference Court has enhanced the compensarion by lOyo evcry year and has grantcd Rs.72,OOO/ _ per acr(., rr,hicl-r is -just and reasonable. Point No. 1 is answered accordingll.. AtR 2013 SC 3463 ,/ 7 AKS,] & ETD,] LAAS No.9 2017 ),4. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned finding arrived at Point No.1, this Court holds that the order and decree of the reference Court do not need any interference.

15. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order and decree dated 05.02.2009 passed in O.P.No.25 of 2003 by the learncd Senior Civil Judgc at Gadq,al. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal.(With records) 2. Two CCs to the GP forAppeals, State of Telangana, High Court Buildings, at Hyderabad (OUT)

3. One CC to Sri S. Venkateshwar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies DUPSL HIGH COURT DATED:11l0712025 JUDGMENT LAAS.No.9 ot 2017 '-.1.'<r-. l' '. -.': ..l',t..-i'\r '.:.\i '':3 ?$?5 /''.. 1, (' DISMISSING THE APPEAL I ?^)4- 1344s1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA LAND ACQUISITIO N FIRST APPEAL NO: 9 OF 2017 Between: The lVandal Revenue Officer, leeja, I\/ahabubnagar District. AND ...Petitioner/Respondent

1. Smt. Sarojamma, W/o. Late P. Ramachandra Reddy (died) LRs 2 to 4 2. P. Somasekhar Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, (died pr LRs RR 5 to 6) 3. P. Thirumal Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, (died pr LRs RR 7 to 8) 4. P. Sridhar Reddy @ Raghavendra Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, (All are Occ Agril, R/o. Uthanoor Village of leeja Mandal)

5. P. Sudarshanamma, W/o. Late P. Soma Sekhar Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Occ: House Wife, Fl/o. Uthanur Village, leeja Mandal, Gadwal Jogulamba District.

6. P. Ramachandra Reddy, S/o. years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Jobulamba District. Late P. Soma Sekhar Reddy, Aged about 34 . Uthanur Village, leeia Mandal, Gadwal (Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Respondent No. 2 as per court order dated 22.03.2022 vide lA. No. 1 of 2022 in LAAS No. 9 of 2017)

7. P. Suvarnamma, W/o. Late P. Thirumal Reddy, Aged about 54 years' Occ: Housewife, Rl/o. Uthanur Village, leeja Mandal, Gadwal Jobulamba District. 8. P. Gowtham Reddy, S/o. Late P. Thirumal Reddy, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Software Engineei, Rl/o. Uthanur Village, leeja Mandal, Gadwal Jobulamba District. (Respondent Nos. 7 & 8 are brought on record as LRs of deceased il.espondent No. 3 as per court order dated 24.08.2022 vide lA. No 2 of 2022 in LAAS No. 9 of 2017) ., ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under section 54 of L.A.Act aggrieved by the order and decree dated 05.02.2009 passed in op.No.2s of 2003 on the file ol the court of the Senior Civil Judge at Gadwat. This appeal comrng on for hearing and upon perrsing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court berow and the materiar papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments ol G.p. for Appeals Advocate for the Apperrant and of Sri s venkateshwar Recrdy, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, None appeared for the Respondent Nos. 1, 5 to g. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the Land Acquisition Appear suit be and hereby is dismissed uphording the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2009 passed in cr.p No.25 of 2003 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal; and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPYII SD/. K.SRINIVASA RAO uorNT REGTSTRAR 'J SECTION OFFICER i, To,

1. The S_errior Civil Judge at Gadwal.(With records) 2. Two CD Copies DL/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1110712025 DECREE LAAS.No.9 of 2017 DISMISSING THE APPEAL 3 \).