High Court · 2025

1. Rikkala Gangaram, S/o Rajalingu, agecl 58 vears. 2. Kondrikala Chinna Rajanna, S/o Narsimlu agecl 45 vears. 3. Baddam Anjaiah, S/o Gangaram, aged r15 1,ears. 4. Rikkala Gangaram, S/o Rajalugu agecl 58 years. 5. G. Srinivasa Reddy, S/o Murali Manol'rar Rcddy, aged 48 ycars. 6. Kondrikala Chinna Rajanna, S/o Narsimlu, aged 45 r,cars. 7. Teegala Rajaram, S/o Papaiah, aged 63 years. B. Baddam Raiu, W/o Ammaiah, aged 30 ycars. 9. Chapala Reddy, S/o Gangaram, agcd 46 years. 10. G. Srinivas Reddy, S/o Murali manohar rcddy, aged 48 vears. 11. Bhushan Gangaram, DIED. LR bought on record as Claimant No.30, 12. Bhoothi Puram Bakkanna, S/o Pedda Linganna, agcd 50 years. 13. Teegala Chinnaiah, S/o Papaiah, agcd 72 years. 14. Jaidi Hanmandlu, S/o Lingalrna, agecl 42 years. 15. Baddam Raiu, W/o Ammaiah, aged 70 years. 16. Gopidi Gan gararn, S/ o Gangaram, aged 70 years. 17. Teegala Rajaram, S/o Papaiafu agcd 62 ycars. 18. Nomula Muthenna, S/o Bhoomanna, aged 35 ycars. 19. Bhoopathi Puram Mallaiah, S/o Chinna Venkanna, agcd 45 years. 20. Yanapuram Gangaram, S/o Gangaram, aged 65 years. (died) per L.Rs. R.31. 21. Yellala Ramulu, s/o Rajanna, aged 65 ycars. 22. Mamidi Ramulu, S/o Venkanna, aged 65 years, (died) per L.Rs. R.32 23. Nomula Chinna Muthanna, S/o Linganna, aged 45 years (died) per L.Rs. R.33. 24. |aidi Chinna Gangaram, S/o Pedda Gangaram, aged 65 years, (died) pcr LRs.R.34 25. Kadapati Gangaram, S/o Linganna, aged 65 years. 26. Mamidi Gangaram, S/o Bhoomaiah, aged 50 years, (died) per LRs. R.35. 27. Nomula Gangaram, S/o Linganna (1/2 share), aged 60 years. 28. Kadapati Gangaram, S/o gangaram (1/2 share) aged 55 vears. 29. Yellala Somanna, S/o Raianna, aged 75 years. 30. Smt. Bhushan Gangavva,W f o late Gangaram, aged 65 years. (Appellant No.30 is brough on record as i-R of Clairnant No.11 as per orders in I.A,.No.4215l 2003 dated 19.12.2003). I

31. Yanapuram Chinna Ganga Reddy, S/o. Late Y.Gangaram, aged 40 years, Occ: Agrl., R/o. Mortad Viltage, Nizamabad District.

32. N,tarnidi Raiu Bai, W/o. late Mamidi Ramulu, aged 65 vears, Occ: Agrl., R/o. Mortad Village, Nizamabad I)istrict. 3'3. Nomula Chinna Gangaram, S/o. late Chinna Muthanr-ra, aged 44 years, Occ: Agr1., R/o. Mortad Vitlage, Nizamabad District. 3-1. Jaidi Gangadhar, S/o. [.ate ]adi Chinna Cangaram, aged 36 years, Occ: Agrl., R/o. Mortad Village, Nizamabad District.

35. Nlamidi Gangaram, S/o. late Gangaram, aged 50 vears, Occ: Agrl., R/o. Mortad V'illage, Nizamabaci I)istrict. (ltR. 3i to 35 are brought on record as L.Rs. of deceased RR.20,22,23,24 & 26 as per Court ortlcr clated 08.01.2t)08 in L.A.A.S.M.P.Nos. 231 to 235 of 2008)" ...Respondents/ Respondents l.A. NO: 1 OF 2007(LAASN{P. NO: 723 OF 2007) Petition uncler Sr'ctir.ln 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the afficl;rvit filetl in sup'rport of the petition, the High Court mav be pleasecl To grant stav of all further proceedings including execution of the decrec passed in OP.NO.62/1995 r-latci 28/07/2005 on thc filc ot the I Acldl. District Judgc, Nizamabacl pcnding disposal of thc a ppeal. (-ourrsel for the Appcllant: Covt. Pleader for Appeals. (lounsel for thc Respondent: Sri V.Manohar Rao l hc Court macle the following: JUDGMENT: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON',BLE SMT Jtis',rICE TIR{ iNIALA Dr.M EAI)A LAAS.No.533 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: (Pt Ilon'bte -rn lrcri,,'.-1tt/ittarul Knrndr It,,r,i/it Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated

28.07.2005 passed in O.P.No.62 of 1995 bythe I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, the present Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Refen-ing Olf icer.

2. Heard leamed Govemment Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant and Sn V.Manohar Rro, leamed counsel appearing for respondents.

3. It is the case of the appellant that the land to an extent of Ac.25.09 guntas situated.rt Mortad Villaee, Mortad Mandal, was acquired from the rcspondents for excavation o[ feeder channel in pursuance o1' the Notification issued under Section a (1) of the Land Acqtusition Act. 1894 (for short 'the Act). The Land Acquisition Officer has categorized the lands of the respondents as category-I anc{ category-Il andJqf the Lrnds of category-I, the Lanci l Acquisition Otficer has awarded the compensation of Rs.15.OOO/- per acre and in resPect of category-Il, awarded an amount of Rs.13,OOO/- per acre and accordingly, passed an Award on 26.a9.1994. Being not satisfied vTth the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acqusition Officer, the respondents sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Land Acquisition Officer has referred the case to the Reference C-oun and the same was numbered as O.P.No.62 of 1995. \X/ithout appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellant, the Referenc e Caun uide Judgment 28.07.2005 has enhanced the compensarion ro Rs.Z-5,000/'- per acre for the total extenr of the land. Hence, the present appeal.

4. Learned Govemmenr Pleader appearing for the appellant had contended that the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly categorized the lands of the respondents by relyng on E,x.A1-sale deed, dated 01.02.1994 and awarded the compensarion. But this aspect was not properly rrrrrr-r , ,1. I 1 l appreciated by the Reference C,oun irnd the Reference C-ourt again enhanced the compensation for thc total extent of the land by relyng on Ex.A1. Thercforc, appropriate orclcrs bc passed ln the appeal by seninq aside the juclgn'rcnt ar.rrl decree dated 28.A7.2005 passed by the Reference Crlurt in O.P.No.52-of 1995.

5. 'Lear:ned coLrnsel appearing ior thc respondents h.rd contended that the Reference Coun has relied uporl Ex.Al-sale deed, dated 01.02.1994, r.vhich is prior io issuance of + (l) notification and rightly enhanced the compensation. Therefore, there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissecl.

6. Flaving considered the rival submissions mirde by the learned counsel on either side, this Coun is o[ the vieq' that as Ex.A1-sale deed dated 01.02.1994 was i-ssued thrce montlr prior to issuance of Section 4(1) notil'ication, tlie Reference C-.ourt was justified in relying on Ex.Al-sale deed, and enhancing the compensation. Therefore, this C-oun is 1 not inclinecl to inter{ere with the order pxsed bv the Refertnce Cour-t. 7 Accordinglv, the Appeaiis dismissed. No cosrs. Vl-iscelianeous peririons, rI any, pending shall stand closcd SD/. A,V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRA /lTRUECoPv/ / SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Tbe-l Additional District Judge at Nizamabad. z. d8cq to GP IjoR nppge[s, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. [sFNrs] Couf) 3. One CC to Sri V.Manohar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Tw.o CD Copies ]CK/SA w I ]IGH COURT DATEDJS/07 /2025 JUDGMENT t.AAS.No.533 of 2006 {HE S T; ? 0 iAN 2026 i .ii , I F^nl,T;,', i ,t']. \r .J o C) i Dismissing the I-.A.A.S. u,ithout costs "T J> "d ({,"q +Pr