The High Court · 2025

4. P.Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Panduranga Rao, Aged about 38 1,ssr-., Kakar;ta House, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Yusufguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

5. D.Subba Rao, S/o.D.R.K Chowdary, Aged about 50 years, R/o.Kakarta House, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Yusufguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

6. Vegi Veera Raju, S/o.Chintala Aged about 58 years, Rio Sri Sai Ram Films, D.No.41-2-1 96, Tadi Thota, Rajahmundry.

7. Vegi Vishalaxmi, W/o. Veera Raju, Aged about 52 years, R/o.Sri Sai Ram Films, D.No.41-2-196, Tadi Thota, Rajahmundry.

8. Vegi Venkata Ramakrishna Chowdary, S/o. Veera Raju,.Aged about 40 years, R/o.Sri Sai Ram Films, D.No.41-2-196, Tadi Thota, Rajahmundry

9. Vegi Veera Venkata Satya Chiranjeevi Rao, S/o. VeeraRaju, Aged about 45 years, R/o.Sri Sai Ram Films, D.No.4'1-2-196, Tadi Thota, Rajahmundry.

10. Narla Murali Kishore, S/o. Ganga Prasad, Aged 45 years, R/o.Sri Sai Ram Films, D.No.41 -2-1 96, Tadi Thota, Rajahmundry. 1 1. S.V.Ramanababu, S/o. Parvathalu, Aged about 44 yea$, R/o. H. No.3-2-50, Venugopalaswamy temple Road, Suryapet, Suryapet District.

12. K.R.K.Prasad, S/o.Pornachander Rao, Aged about 46 years, R/o.Kakarla House, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Yusufguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

13. K.Radha Devi, Wo.K.R.K.Prasad, Aged about 40 years, R/o.Kakarla House, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Yusufguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

14. Ch.Laxmi Eshwari Wo.Bhagavan Das, Aged about 58 years, R/o.Kakarla House, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Yusufguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

15. K. Poornachander Rao, S/o.Venkat Narayana, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Kakarla House, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Yusufguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 16. Venkata Ravamma, W/o.Poornachander Rao, Aged about 52 years, R/o.Kakarla House, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Yusufguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. '17. K.Padma Priya, Wo.Satyanarayana, Aged about 40 years, Rr'o.Kakarla House, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Yusufguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. '18.B. D.V.Subba Rao, S/o.D.B.K.Chowdary, Aged about 50 years, R/o.Kakarla House, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Yusufguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

19. D. Bhavani, Wo.Subba Rao, Aged about 43 years, R/o.Kakarla House, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Yusufguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

20. Ganduri Nirmala, Wo. Prabhakar, Aged 23 years, R/o.P.S.R.Centre, Suryapet.

21. Mothkur Jyothi, Wo.Satish, Aged 36 years, R/o.P.S.R.Cenke, Suryapet. 22.Mothkuri Satish, S/o. Suryanarayana, Aged about 40 years, R/o.P.S.R.Centre, Suryapet, Suryapet Distrlct. .. Respondents/Respondents Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstanies stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To vacate the order dated. 0910312017 in LA.AS.MP.No. 229 ot 2017 in LA.AS.NO.16212017 Counsel for the Appellant : GP FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A PRABHAKAR RAO The Court delivered the following: Judgment I I I i I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.162 of 2Ol7 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'bte Smt. Justice Ttrumata Deui Eado) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land /icquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the ActJ is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer (Revcnue Divisional Officer, Suryapet), Nalgonda Disrrict, aggrieved bJ, the order and decree dated 18.04.2016 passed in L.A.O.P,No.24 of 2003 by the lcarned Senior t.livil Judge at Suryapet (hcre inafter rcferrt.d to as 'the reference ()ourt').

2. For convenience and clarity, lhe parties here:in are referred to as they were arrayed before the reference Court.

3. The [acts of thc casc in bricf arc that thc Govcrnment has acquircd the land to an extent of Ac.28.14 guntas for the purpose of agricultur:rl market yard in Suryapet and Bechirag Madharam. The notihcation under Section 4(l) of the Act was; published on

19.09.2000 and after conducting due enquilr,. the Land Acquisition ()fficer has granted Rs. 1,0O,000/- per acre. Having dissatished u,ith the award, the claimants havc preferred an application and the same was referred to the Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet. --- i 2 AKs,J & ETD,J LAAS No.162 2017

4. The reference Court has framed the following point for consideration: "Whether the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and proper for the same enhancement, if so what relieP"

5. Before the reference Court, the claimants got examined PWs 1 to 8 and Exs.Pl to P21 and Exs.Xl and X2 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, RW1 was examined and Ex.R1 was marked.

6. Based on the evidence on record, the relerence Court has enhanced the value to Rs.6,00,0O0/- per acre, apart from the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred the present appeal.

7. Heard the submissions of learned Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learncd counsel for the respondents.

8. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation exorbitantly from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs.6,O0,00Ol- and that the reference Court.has enhanced it based on surmises, without hxing any point for consideration. He further submitted that the refere gQe Court has relied upon the judgment in O.P.No.46 ot AKs,] & ETD,J LAAS No.162 2017 1993 and has erroneously granted the compensr,rtion and that the compensation that was granted at Rs.4,OO,Cr00/- per acre was done about 15 ycars ago and that there is no finding by the Court below with regard to the enhanced value tf the land as claimed by the claimants and he has further subrnitted that the learned reference Court has shown reluctance to enhance the compensation in its discussion, but however has enhanced it from Rs. 1,O0,000/ - to Rs.6,00,000/ - per acre. He therefore, prayed to set aside the orders of the reference Court.

9. The learned respondent counsel has subntitred that the reference Court has taken all the components into consideration and has rightly enhanced the compensation zrnd therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for detcrmination: I 2 Whether the claimants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation? Whether the order and decree of the reference Court need any interference?

3. To what relieP \ T 4 AKS,I & ETD,] LAAS No.152 2017

11. POINT NO.1: a) PWl is the claimant No.S and his evidence reveals that the land that is acquired is situated adjacent to Bechirag Madharam village within a radius of 2 KM from Suryapet Town and that it is near the industrial estate, bus stand and other educational institutions and it is also at the commercial junction of Suryapet to'"r,n. Hc further depose d that there are numbcr of sale transactions which Look place nearby the acquired lands @ Rs.40,OO,000/ per acrc. It is further elicited through him that the land acquired is suitablc for house sites and that prior to acquisition, they used to raise commercial crops, vegetables and used to earn Rs.4,00,OOO/- per acre after deducting expenses. To support their ciaim, he filed Exs.Pl and P2 which are the sale deeds dated 07.08.2009 and 22.O8.2OO8 respectively. . Under Ex.P1 the open land to an extent of 24O Sq.Yards in survey Nos.71l I, 7 | /2, 7l l3 and 7114 was sold @ Rs.SOO/- and under Ex.P2, the open land to an extent of 140 Sq.Yards in survey Nos.71l2 and 71, Ward No.1, Block No. 1O was sold @ Rs.45O/-. Though Exs.P1 and P2 reflects the sale transaction to an extent of Rs.24,20,00O/- and Rs.20,98,OOO/- per acre respectively, they cannot be considered because they are of the years 2009 and 2008, 'lrhile the notillcation is dated l9.O9.2OOO. I uf't'J 5 AKs,J & ETD,J LAAS No.162 2017 b) PW2 also deposed on similar lines. He deposecl that the land pertaining to Sri P.V.Narsimha Rao in O.P. No.46 of 1993 under Exs.P3 to P5 was acquired in the year 199i3 and they are nearby the acquired lands and that the Court at Suryapet granted compensation @ Rs.1,80,000/- per acre and that his lands are more fertile than the lands covered under IJxs.P3 to P5. It is further elicited from him that he sold land (1) Its.500/- per square yard under Ex.P13 which is a sale deed dated O2.09.2009 and that the said land is at a distance of tu,o furiongs from the acquired lands. It is further elicited lrom him that :Ln industrial estate, Vijaya colony and Ambedkar colony were alrcady existing prior to acquisition. c) The evidence of PW3 runs in support to that oi PWs 1 and 2. PWs 4 to 8 are the residents o[ the said viltage and it is elicited from them that their lands are situated nearby Ambedkar colony, Suryapet. PWS owns a house site to an extent of 121 Square yards in survey No.61. PW6 owns a house site to an extent of 240 Sq.yards in suruey No.7, PW7 owns an extent of 81 square yards and PW8 owns an extent of 293 square yards in survey No.59 and it is elicited that all these lands are situated within the limits. of Suryapet Municipality and the1, purchased from their original owners in the year 2OOO @ Rs.l-:lOO/-, Rs.550 1 .l l l I I i i l I I l I I i I I ,i i r I 6 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAs No.162 2017 and Rs.600/- respectively. In the cross examination of PWs 1 to 8, nothing could be elicited to discredit their evidence d) RW t has admitted in his evidence that the sales statistics for a period of preceding three years that .is from 29.09.1997 to

28.Oq .2OOO have been obtained. He stated that the acquired lands are fallow and being used for pastoral purposes. It is elicited in his evidence that the acquired lands are adjacent to the Ambedkar Nagar and that there is a trend o[ day to day increase in the land value and that considering the said fact, he has hxed the value @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. RW1 admitted during his cross examination that the houses for weaker sections were constructed near the acquired lalds by laying roads and constructing schools and that the acquired land is situated at a distance of 1 KM from the National Highway leading from Hyderabad to Vijayawada and also that there are Eenadu Office, electricity office and other Government offices located nearby the acquired lands. It is further elicited from him that prior to acquisition, there were house plots made by Kodati Venkanna, Laxminarsimha Rao and others in the said lands. He further admitted that the land acquired in 1982 for Ambedkar Colony, the reference Court has awarded an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- per acre and the same was confirmed by this Court as per Ex.A3 and 7 AK5,J & ETD,J LAAS No.152 2017 thal there is a cell tower at the acquired lan d, r.".hich was established t\^ro years prior to the acquisition. It is further elicited through him that a Commissioner was appointed in this case and Exs.X1 and X2 refer to the said commissioner reports and that he has not filed any objections to ihe commissioner report. e) The sales statistics reflected in Ex.R1/award copy, which is liled by the Land Acquisition Olficer show t.hat there are certain sale transactions from 1997 Lo 2000- A perusal revcals that in thc year 200O also there were several sale transactions and it is elicited that at Sl.No. i47 an extent of Ac.rl 20 guntas of dry land in Suryapet municipality was sold on @ Fls.2 Lakhs per acre, which appears to be the highest transactiorLs for the year 2O0O. This is the highest rate as per [he sales s[arisrics refcrrcd by the Land Acquisition Officer and it is most pro;<imate in time to the date of acquisition which is on 19.09.2000. In Bechirag Madharam village also there were certain sale transactions during 1997 to 200O and a perusal of the samr: in the sales sta[istics under Ex.R1 disclose that at Sl.No. t7 tht: dry land was sold @Rs.4,84,000/- per acre in the year 1997 and so also in the year 2000 certain lands were sold @ Rs.3,35,151i - pcr acre at SI.No.189 and another sale transaction at SI.No.2lJ3 reflects the \ ;I'l I 8 AKS,J & ETO,] LAAS No.152-2017 price as Rs.4,80,O00/ - per acre, which discloses that there are around 19 1 sale transactions in suryapet revenue village including the outskirts of suryapet municipality and Bechirag Madharam village, where the land is acquired lor the market yard in the present case. Therefore, considering the said sale statistics, it is held that the lands were fetching more value at the relevant point of time than what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. f1 The claimants further relicd upon Dx. P3. A perusal of the same reveals that it is the copy of the orders passed by this Court on 08.10.2007 in AS No. 1I43 of 1994 by which the appeal preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer was dismissed confirming the compensation granted by the reference Court to an extent of Rs. 1 ,8O,00O f - per acre . It is to be observed that the land in the said case was acquired in Bechirag Madharam village of suryapet for the purpose of house siles for weaker sections in the year 1982 and in that case, the Land Acquisition Officer has gralted Rs.6,0OO/ - per acre while the reference Court has enhanced it to Rs.1,80,O0O/- per acre, the same was confirmed by the High Court. The said acquisition was dates back to 1982, while the present land that is acquired is in 2000. The claimants have filed trxs.P7 to P15 and Pl7 to P2 I , which are the sale 9 AKs,I & ETO,J LAAS No.162 2017 deeds pertaining to 1998 to 2O0O to prove that their lands fetch higher value, though Ex.A2 reflects the higher potential of the value, it is not considered because it is of the ycar 2OO9. It is elicited from the exhibits and the evidence of La.nd Acquisition Officer that he has not considered the highest value as reflected in the sales statistics. Therefore, considering the evidence on record, it is helcl that the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer is very meager, when compared to the value of the land at the relevant point of time and the compensation of Rs.6,0O,000/- per acre as granted by the reference Court appears to be well justihed. Point No.1 is answererl accordingly.

12. POINT NO.2: In vierv of the reasoned finding arrived at Pojnt No.1, this Court holcls that the order and decree of the reference Court do noL need any interference.

13. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order and decree dated 18.04.2016 passed in L.A.O.P.No.24 of 2OO3 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet. No costs. 10 AKS,I & ETD,J LAAS No.162 2017 Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shail stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/: K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet 2. Two CCs to the GP FOR APPEALS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

3. One CC to SRI A PRABHAKAR RAO, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two QD Copies ADK/gh ry. \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 JUDGMENT+DECREE 2 DRAFTS LAAS.No.162 of 2017 R THE S ( s [ 5 AUG 2025 T * (J * DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS l I l I I i I i [ 3445 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EAOA LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APPEAL NO: 162 OF 2017 Between: The State through the Land Acquisition Officer, (Revenue Divisional Officer Suryapet), Nalgonda District. ... Petitioner/Respondents AND 1 S. Koteswara Rao, S/o, Subba Rao, aged 48 years, Kakarla House, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Yusulguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 2 J 4 E 6 7 o 9 K.R.K. Prasad Rao, S/o. Poornachander Rao, Age 46 years, Kakarla House, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Yusulguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. P. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Panduranga Rao, Age 38 years, Kakarla House, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Yusufpnuda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. D. Subha Rao, S/o. D.B.K. Chowdarv, aged 50 years. Kakarla House, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Yustirguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Bandaruraja, S/o. Rangaiah, aged 32 y ears. House No. 1-4-261, K.K. Road, Suryapet. Pasamuru Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Laxma Reddy, Age 55 years, H.No. 1-9- 61 I 1 B, Yliaya Colony, Suryapet Vegi Veera Raju, S/o. Chintala. age 58 years. Sri Sai Ram Films, D.No.4 l-2- 1 96, Tadilhota, Rajamundry. Vegi Vishalaxmi, Wo. Veera Raju, aged 52 years, R/o. Sri Sai Ram Films, 41- 2- 1 96, Tadi Thota, Rajahmundry. Vegi Venkata Ramakrishna Chowdary, S/o. Veera Raju, Age 40 years, R/o. Sri Sai Ram Films,41-2-196, Tadi Thota, Rajahmundry. 'l0.Vegi Veera Venkata Satya Chiranjeevi Rao, S/o. Veera Raju, R/o. Sri Sai Ram Films, 41-2-156, Tadi Thota, Rajahmundry.

11. Narla Murali Kishore, S/o. Ganaga Prasad, age 45 years. R/o. Sri Sai Ram Films, 41-2-196, Tadi Thota, Rajahmundry.

12.Kale Manjula, Wo.Sanjeeva Rao, age 33 years, R/o. H.NO. '1-9-61/'18, Vijaya Colony, Suryapet, l3.Kakkirani Rama Krishna., S/o. Ram Narsaiah, age45yr:ars. R/o. H.No.1-9- 61/18, Vijaya Colony. Suryapet. '14. Kodati Laxminarsimha Rao, S/o. Rama Rao. age 34 years. R/o. K.K.Road, Suryapet.

15. S.V. Ramanababu, S/o. Parvathalu, aged 44 years, R/o. H.No.3-2-50, Venugopalaswamy Temple Road, Suryapet, 'l6.Chennapati Dasharatha Ramaiah, S/o.Subbaiah, age 612 Years, R/o. H.N0.1- 9-61/'18, Vijaya Colony, Suryapet '17. K.R.K Prasad. S/o. Poornachander Rao. aged 46 years Kakarla House, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Yusufguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad

18. K. Radha Devi, Wo. K.R.K. Prasad. age 40 years, R/o. Kakarla House, Jaya Prakash Nagar. Yusufguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

19. Ch. Laxmi Eshwari, Wo. Bhagavan Das, age 58 years, R/o Kakarla House, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Yusufguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 20, K. Poornachander Rao, S/o. Venkat Narayana. age 50 years R/o. Kakarla House, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Yusufguda, Ameerp-et, Hyderabad. 2'1 .Venkata Ravamma, Wo. Poornachander Rao, age 52 years, R/o. Kakarla House, Jaya Poornachander Rao, age 52 years.

22.K. Padma Priya, Wo. Satyanarayana, age 40 years, R/o Kakarla House, Jaya Prakash Nagar Yusufguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad

23. D.V.Subba Rao, S/o.D.B.K. Chowdary. age 50 years, R/o. Kakarla House, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Yusufguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad

24. D.Bhavani, Wo. Subba Rao, age 43 years, R/o. Kakarla House, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Yusufguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

25.Ganduri Shankar, S/o. Rama Swamy, age 47 years, R/o. P.S.R Center. Suryapet,

26.Ganduri Pravalika, Wo. Prakash, age 28 years, R/o. P.S;.R Center, Suryapet, 27.Ganduri Manga, Wo. Satyanarayna, age 42 yearc, R/o. P S.R. Centre Suryapet,

28.Gnaduri Nirmala, Wo- Prabhakar, Age 23 years R/o. P.S.R.Center, Suryapet,

29.Ganduri Prabhakar, S/o. Shanker, age 26 years, R/o. P.S.R Center, Suryapet,

30. Mothkur Jyothi, W/o. Satish, age 36 years, R/o. P.S,R Center, Stayapet, 3l. Ganduri Ranganath, S/o. Krishna Murthy, age 35 years, P.S.R Center, Suryapet, 32-Ganduri Prakash, S/o. Rama Swamy, age 30 years, R/o. P.S.R Center, Suryapet,

33. Mothkuri Sathish, S/o. Surya Narayana, age 40 years, Rio P.S.R Center, Suryapet,

34.Ganduri Ramaswamy, S/o. Venkanna, age 70 years. R/c. P S R. Center, Suryapet,

35. Ganduri Padma, Wo. Shankar, Age 42 years, R/o.P.S.R Center, Suryapet ...RespondenUPetitioner Appeal under Section 54 of L.A. Act 1894 R/w Section 96 of the CPC against the Judgment and decree dated 18.04.2016 made in O.P.No.24 of 2013 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of GP FOR APPEALS for the Appellant and of SRI A PRABHAKAR RAO, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the LAAS be and hereby is dismissed upholding the order and decree dated '18-04-2016 passed in LAOP.No.24 of 2003 by the Senior Civil Judge at Su ryapet;

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD . K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT R SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet 2. Two CD Copies ADK W HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 DECREE LAAS.No.162 of 2017 DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS I ?