The High Court · 2025

37. D.Srinivas, S/o.Ramaiah (C.33 to C.37 were brought on record as L.Rs of C.15 as per I.A.No.1019 of 91 dated 26-03-92)

38. Begari Venkatamma, Wo.Ramaiah

39. Begari Mallesha, S/o.Ramaiah (C.38 and C.39 were brought on record as LRs of C.20 as per LA No.1021/91, dated 26-3-92)

40. Parvathamma, W/o.Begari Papaiah (C.40 brought on record as L.Rs of C.21 as per order in 1.A.101 8/9'l dated 26- 3-e2) 41 . D.Laxmamma, W/o.D.tvlallaiah, Aged 55 years

42. D.Narsimulu, S/o.D.Mallaiah Aged 40 years

43. D.Kistaiah, S/o.D.Mallaiah Aged 38 years

44. D.Pentaiah, S/o.Mallaiah Aged 35 years (C.1 to C.44 are LRs C.14 brought on record as per order per 1.4.623/93 dated 13-7-93)

45. Dodla Laxmamma, W/o.Narayana Aged 50 years

46. D.Anthaiah, S/o.Narayana Aged 30 years

47. D.Anjaiah, S/o.Narayana Aged 26 years

48. D.Yadaiah, S/o.Narayana Aged 25 years (C.45 to C.48 are L.Rs of C.17 brought on record as per order in 1.A.242196 dated 21-6-96)

49.Tenugu Sathyamma, Wo.Late Tenugu Ramaiah, 62 years

50.Tenugu Anjaiah, S/o.Ramaiah Aged 45 years

51.Tenugu Narayana, S/o.Ramaiah Aged 43 years

52.Tenugu Dharmaiah, S/o.T.Ramaiah, Aged 41 years (C.49 to C.52 were brought on record of L.Rsof C.12 as per l.A. 1962100' dated 14-'t2-2000) All are Residents of yeddumailaram village, Medak District. Rr.Nos.5,8,9,11 ,18,22,27,29,3O,35,37,41 ,47 & 48 dismissed for default vide cou( order dated 15-02-2011. ... Res pon d e nts/C laim a nts Counsel for the Appellant: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondents No.8,11 ,22,38 and 39: Ms. B.V. Aparna Lakshmi Counsel for the Respondent No.9: Sri Rapolu Bhaskar Counsel for the Respondents No.49 to 52: Sri K. Sudhakar The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT TTIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEV]- EADA AP al Suit No. LL2 5 of 2OO4 JUDGMENT i (Per llon'bl<' Si Justice Abhttldnd Kumor Shauili) HeardlearnedAdvocateGeneral,appeairngfortheappellant' Ms.B.V.AparnaLakshmi,learnedcounselappearingfor respondent Nos.8, I 1,22,3a and 39, Sri Rapolu Bhaskar' learned counsel appearing for respondent No 9 and Sri K'Sudhakar' learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos'49 to 512

2. When thc matter is taken up for hearing' learned Advocate General, appearing for the appellant has informed the Court that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely clvered by the Appeal Suit No.833 o 2O04 dated judgment of this Court ln I t9.o4.2022.

3.Learnedcounselappearingfortherespondentl\os8'9'11'38' 39 and 49 to 52 have not disputed about the said facr' A perusal of the record discloses that Appeal lluit No'833 of 4 2004 was dismissed by the Division Bench of t}'tis Court vide Judgment dated 19.O4.2 O22 by following the Comreon Judgment Suil No.1081 of 1991 and batch, dated passed in APPeal t9.r2.1996. 2 AS 1125

5. In view of the above, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed by following the Judgment passed in Appeal Suit No.g33 of 2aO4 dated t9.O4.2022 6 Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed by following the 1n Appeal Suit No.833 ol 2OO4, dated Judgment passed 19 .O4 .2022. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Appeal Suit, shall stand closed. SDI. M D EAH-$'$?HXI SECNON OFFICER IIRUE COPYII edak at NERA. hmi Ad vocate cate [O 6,M EGE Laks kar Ad Advo Sanga L IOPU vocate PU C] PU toPUCI ct Judg I Distri ditiona The Ad OCA.t E ADV to TH One CC to [t/ls. BV. Aparna One CC Bhas Rapolu to Sri One CC kar , K. Sudha to Srt One CC D CoPies I (Annexed a Co F pY ot Judgment ' daled 19-04-2022' in A,S'No 833 of 2004 ) \ \ To,

1. c

3. 4. 6 t) HIGH COURT DATE D :04 10212025 JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.1125 of 2004 S rJ (J tuJ E2 * DISMISSING OF THE APPEAL SUIT (t- --fr <- pqlatts i) .;: '/ oF,, \t;{l"!=-.-i {r, , lt,. ti::r 4* -.4, a. 2 THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU APPEAL SUIT NO. 833 OF 2oo4 ORDER: (Pcr Hon'blc Sri Justice p.Naveen Rao) Heard Sri C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents

2. The lands of respondents in Eddumailaram Village were acquired for estabhshing Ordinance Factory. The Land Acquisition Ofhcer (for short 'LAO) determined the compensation. Not satisfred with the compensation determined by the LAO, the land owners who are respondents herein, ar-rd several others sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. The claim of respondents herein was mrmbered as O.P.No.554 of 199i on the file of I Additional District Judge, Medak, at Sangareddy. The said O.p., was heard and disposed of by a common order dated 27.06.200| in O.p.No.548 of L997 and batch. The reference Court granted enhancement of compensation at Rs. 1 1,000/ to all the lald owners. In addition to enhancement of compensation, the reference Court also held that ,,the claimants ore entitled, to 3Ot% solatium on the total enhanced- compen-sation amount, and. additional market ualue at 12% per annum from tLrc date of notification tilt the date o.7t possession, and interest ot 9%, per annum from the d_ate of ,.",. 3 possession /or one gear and at jS% per annum thereaft er till the date of paAment". Aggrieved by the orders of thc referencc Court, batch of appeals were preferred before this Court. A.S.No.l081 of 1991and batch was heard by the Division Bench of this Court and b.r common order dated 19.12.1996, all the appeals were dismissed l:y affirming the compensation determined by the reference Court.

3. Since the judgment of this Court in A.S.No.lcg1 of 1991 and -erence Court in batch arises out of the common order passed by the re O.P.No.548 of 1991 and batch, including the O.p., 1 referred by the respondents herein i.e., O.P.No.554 of 1991, following r re said decision of this Court, the appeal suit is dismissed. Misceliarreous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. 19'IH APRIL, 2022 F.I P. lrAvEEN RAO, J SAMBASIVI\RAO NAIDU, J 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU /a ,: I l APPEAL SUIT NO. 833 OF 2OO4 Date:l9.O4.2022 PT [ 3445 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT No: 1125 of 2004 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer-Cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy. ...AppellanURespondent AND

1. Devnoor Venkat Swamy, S/o.Venkaiah 2. Mahaiah, S/o.Venkaiah 3. Krishna,S/o.Venkaiah 4. Devnoori Veeraiah, S/o.Venkaiah 5. Borla Chandraiah, S/o.Papaiah 6. Asiz Bee, W/oAbdul Gafoor 7. Pasha Miya, S/o Shaik lmam (died per L.Rs C26 to 29) 8. Gokam Durgaiah, S/o.Veeraiah 9. Balaraju,S/o.Veeraiah 1 0. Tenugu Chandraiah, S/o.Venkaiah 1 1. Balakistaiah, S/o.Narsaiah Rl/o.Yeddumalaram Village, Medak Dist 1 2. Tenugu Ramaiah, S/o.Yellaiah (Died per L.Rs C.49 to C.52) 1 3. Tenugu Veeraiah, S/o. Venkaiah (Died per L.Rs C.30 to C.32)

14. Dodla Mallaiah, S/o bakkaiah (Died per L.Rs C.41 to 44) '15. Dodla Ramaiah, S/o Bakkaiah (Died per L.Rs C.33 to 44)

16. Dodla Venkaiah, S/o.Bakkaiah ' 17.Dodla Narayana, S/o Bakkaiah, (Died per L.Rs. C.45 to C 48)

18. Dodla Lingaiah, S/o.Bakkaiah

19. Begari Venkaiah, S/o.Venkaiah

20. Ramaiah, s/o.Late Venkaiah (Died per L.Rs C.38 and C.39) 21 . Papaiah, S/o Venkaiah (Died per L.Rs C.40)

22.Mokila Narsaiah, S/o.Buchaiah

23. IMokila Anthaiah, S/o. Narsaiah

24. Devenoori Venkaiah, S/o Mallaiah (Died per L.Rs C.1 to C.4)

25. lllitam Venkaiah, S/o.Mallaiah

26. Hasmath Bee, W/o.Pasha Miya

27. Mohd Basheer, S/o.Pasha Miya

28. I\ilohd Hammed, S/o.Pasha lViya

29.Mohd Habeeb, S/o.Pasha lVliya

30. Tenugu Mallamma, W/o.T.Veeraiah 31 . T.Gopal, S/o.T.Veeraiah

32. T.Venkaiah, S/o.T.Veeraiah

33. D.Rukkamma, Wio.Ramaiah

34. D.Sattaiah, S/o. Ramaiah

35. D.Shankaraiah, S/o.Ramaiah

36. D.Mallesham, S/o.Ramaiah

37. D.Srinivas, S/o.Ramaiah (C.33 to C.37 were brought on record as L.Rs of C.15 as per 1.A.No.1019 of 9l dated 26-03-92)

38. Begari Venkatamma, W/o. Ramaiah

39. Begari Mallesha, S/o.Ramaiah (C.38 and C.39 were brought on record as LRs of C.20 as per 1.A.No.1021l91, dated 26-3-92)

40. Parvathamma, Wo.Begari Papaiah (C.40 brought on record as L.Rs of C.21 as per order in l.A.'1018/91 dated 26- 3-e2) 41 . D.Laxmamma, W/o.D.Mallaiah, Aged 55 years

42. D.Narsimulu, S/o.D.Mallaiah Aged 40 years

43. D.Kistaiah, S/o.D.Mallaiah Aged 38 years

44. D.Pentaiah, S/o.Mallaiah Aged 35 years (C.41 to C.44 are LRs C.14 brought on record as per order per 1.4.623/93 dated 13-7-93)

45. Dodla Laxmamma, W/o.Narayana Aged 50 years

46. D.Anthaiah, S/o.Narayana Aged 30 years

47. D.Anjaiah, S/o.Narayana Aged 26 years

48. D.Yadaiah, S/o.Narayana Aged 25 years (C.45 to C.4B are L.Rs of C.17 brought on record as per order in 1.A.242196 dated 2'1-6-96)

49.Tenugu Sathyamma, W/o.Late Tenugu Ramaiah, 62 years

50.Tenugu Anjaiah, S/o.Ramaiah Aged 45 years

51.Tenugu Namyana, Sio,Ramaiah Aged 43 years

52.Tenugu Dharmaiah, S/o.T.Ramaiah, Aged 4l years (C.49 to C.52 were brought on record of L.Rs of C.12 as per I.A. 1962100, dated 14-12-2000) All are Residents of yeddumailaram village, Medak District. Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 27-06-2001 passed in O.P.No.S4B of 1991 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. ...Respondents/Claimants 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 case and upon hearing the arguments of THE ADVOCATE GENERAL for the appellant and of Ms. B.V. Apama Lakshmi, Counsel for the Respondents No.8,11,22,38 & 39 and Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate for the Respondent No.9 and Sri K. Sudhakar, Advocate for the Respondents No.49 to 52. is Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1. That the Appeal Suit be and hereby is dismissed; and 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/. M RAMANA KRISHNA REGTSTRAR ffr(* j sEcrroru oFFrcER To, '1 . The Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy 2. fwo CD Copies ? 4- HIGH COURT DATED:0410212025 f I DECREE AS.No.1125 of 2004 DISMISSING OF THE APPEAL SUIT (*- 1a \"<-