The High Court · 2025

The Land Acquisition Offir Gadwal. :er, cum_Special Deputy Collector, L.A, Unit, pJp, Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Ajgal Ravi Babu Counsel for the Respondent: Gp FOR APPEALS The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT ... Res pon de nURes po n de nt fl-'=ffi +1-4 // I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHI AND AND KUMAR SHAVILI THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TI UMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.61O 2024 IUDGMENT: (Per Hon ble Sri Justice Abhinand umar Shavili) This appeal, under Section 54 o the Land Acquisition Act, 7894, is filed aggrieved by the order d decree, dated 11.03.2010, passed in O.P.No.66 of 2009 by the earned Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal.

2. Heard Sri Ajgal Ravi Babu, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Govern ent Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent

3. Learned counsel for the appell nts had contended that the lands along with structures belong to the appellants were acquired by the Government for the urpose of irrigation project. Learned counsel further contended t the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.234, dated 15.10.19 3, ordering enhancement of compensation by two more times (1+ ) than the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for acquisi on of the house sites and 2 AKS,J & L A.A.S No.6l of 2024 structures lor srisailam Project, and a Division Bench of this Court in L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2076 has taken a decision that the said G.O. applies to all other irrigation projects also and accordingly, allowecl L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2076 uide judgmenf clatecl 15.09.2022, enham:ing the market value by two more times (1+2) than the value fixed b1r t1-," tu.ro Acquisition officer with all consequenLial benefits as stipulated under the amended Lancl Acquisition Act.

4. Lear.r-'cl cou,sel for the appellants had further contended that following the said judrment, dated 15.09.2022, the very same Division Be*ch has disposed of L.A.A.s.No.125 of 2015 and batch, olde common judgment, dated 27.09.2022. Aggrieved by the said common juclgment, dated 27.09.2022, the State has carried the matter to the Honourable Supreme Court by filing S.L.P.(Civil).No.28925 of 2024 and the same was clismissed by the Hor.rourable Supreme Court aide order, dated 77.09.2024, confirming tlre common judgment, dated 27.09.2022. Therefore, following the judgment, dated 15.09.2022, rendered in L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2016 and also the common jr.rclgment, dated :.,. )/ .,/'., J AKS,J & ETD,J L.A-A.S.No.6l of 2024

27.09.2022, rendered in L.A.A.S.No.1 of 2015 and batch, the present appeal also deserves to be dis osed of by enhancing the market value by two more times (1+2) than the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer with all consequential benefits as stipulated under the amended Land A uisition Act

5. Further, learned counsel for he appellants had fairly conceded that the appeal is filed wi a delay of 5139 days, as admittedly, the appellants are poor mers and illiterates, and therefore, interest may be denied for delay period in preferring the appeal

6. Learned Government Pleader a pearing for the respondent did not dispute the same

7. In the present case, the proper es of the appellants were acquired for the purpose of Pri adharshini Jurala Project. Admittedly, except for the delay, rest of the issues in the present appeal 1S squarely cov by the judgment, dated

15.09.2022, rendered in L.A.A.S.No.4 f 201,6 and also the common L 4 AXS,J & L.A.A S.No.6I of 2024 judgment, dated 27.09.2022, rendered in L.A.A.S.No.125 of 2O7S and batch, which was confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Cowt aidc order, dated 17.09.2024, in S.L.p.(Civil).No.28925 of

2024. Therefore, this Ccurt is of the view that the present appeal can be disposecl of in terms of the aforesaid judgments, dated

75.09.2022 and 27.09.2022, by enhancing the market value by two more times (1 +2) thrn the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer

8. Accordingly, the appeal IS disposed of in terms of the judgment, clated 75.09.2022, rendered by this Court L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2016 ancl also the common judgment, dated

27.09.2022, rendered by this Court in L.A.A.S.No.125 of 2015 and batch, by enl.rancing the n'rarket value by two more times (1+2) than the valuc fixcc.l by the Land Acquisition Officer with all statutory benefits AS stipulated under the amended Land Acquisition Act. However, it is made clear that the appellants are not entitled to interest for the delay period in preferring the appeal 5 AI{S,J & ETD,J L.A.A.S.No.6 t of 2024 Miscellaneous Applications, if y, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. There shall be no or er as to costs. SD/.I. NAGA LAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COP To, 1 J 4 i- 49'u The Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal. (with The Court Masters and P.Ss to the Ho Hyderabad. One CC to Sri Ajgal Ravi Babu, Advoca Two CCs to GP FOR APPEALS ,Hig Two CD Copies SEC ON OFFICER cords, if any) 'ble Judges Association, High Court, IoPUCI Court for the State of Telangana Note: Amount of Rs. 10,0001 ( Rupees T Sri Ajgal Ravi Babu, Counsel for the Petitio to "the Court Masters & Personal Secretari High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad vide U n thousand only ) has been paid by er as directed by the Hon'ble Court s to the Hon'ble Judges Association, R.No.55313 dated 16-06-2025 (Along with a copy of Judgment, dt: 1 5/09/202 Judgment, dt:27109122 in LAAS 125115 and Ba , in LAAS 412016 and Common ch) HIGH COURT DATED:2210412025 i JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.61 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL 1t EH1 IA5 o$ o 1 I AUB 2025 -t laA r * THE HON'BLE JUSTIC G. SRI DEVI AI{D THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE .G. PRTYADARSINI L.A.A.S.No.4 o 20r6 COMMON JUDGMENT : (per Justice G. ri Devi) This appeal is preferred bY the cl imants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Seni r Civil Judge at Narayanpet (hereinafter referred to as "the referen Court") in L.A.O.P.No.47 of 2012, dated 19-03.2013. BY the impu ed order, the reference Court has awarded the market value for e houses/ stmctures of the claimants one time more (1+ 1) than w at was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.34 of 20 1, dated 1O. 1 1.201 1.

2. The houses and structures o the claimalts situated in Anugonda Viliage, were acquired by the Government for the purpose of submergence under Priyadarshini Joo ala Project, by issuing draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the and Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") on 09.09.2OO9. Acquisition Officer has Passed ter due enquiry, the Lald ward on 10. I 1.2O 1 I fixing compensation for houses, structures d open places on the basis of prevailing rates as on the date of notification relying upon the valuation irxed by the requisition au rity, Irrigation DePartment The claimarts having received the com ensation under protest, sought for reference to the civil Court under ectron 18 of the Act, seeking 2 (iSD,J&MGP,J Laas 4 2016 enhancement of compensation. By the impugned order, the reference Court has enhanced the market value one time morc, ( I + 1) than what was awarded by the Lancl Acquisition Officer. Seeking further enhancement of compensation, the claimants preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants and Sri D.Kiran, learned Assistant Government pleader for Appeals. perused the malerial available on recorcl .

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for llie claimants is that evcn under the Government Orders i.e., G.O.Ms.No.234, dated 15.10.1993, marked as Ex.A6, the Government has passed orders granting compensation l+2 tirnes for the houses/ struotures acquired in respect of Srisa am project It is submitted that l.asmuch as the present acquisition of the houses / structures of the crar.rants :rlso for the purpose of irrigation project i_e., priyadarshini Joorala project, Ex.A6 is equall-y applies to the case of the claimants and rherefore, the Iearned counscl seeks to enhance the market value of the compensation 1+2 times than what was awarded by the L.A.O_

5. The Assistant Government pleader for Appeals woulcl submit that the G.O. covered by Ex.A6 was issued in respect of Srisailam project and whereas the present acquisition pertains to priyadarshini I I I J GSD,J&MGP,J Laas 4 2016 Joorala Project, for which no speci IC G.O. was issued by the Government and therefore, Ex.A6 cann t be taken into consideration He further submits that as seen from A1, the reference Court, in respect of earlier acquisition in O.P.No. 11 of 1999, has enhanced the market value by one time more than t e value fixed by the L.A.O. As seen from Ex.A2, this Court in A.S.No. 375 of 20OO has confirmed the market value fixed in Ex.A I . Even e Apex Court, as seen from Ex.A3, has dismissed the appeal co rming the fixation of the said market value by the reference Court. herefore, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals, relyi g on Ex.A3, submits that the market value hxed by the reference C urt is based on evidence and needs no interference by this Court. 6- A perusal of the record disclose that in respect of the earlier acquisition proceedings pertaining to Gaddampally H/o. Anugonda Village, the reference Court has pass d orders in O.P.No.29 of 2OO4 and Batch, dated 23.01.2006 enhanc g the market value by one time more than the value fixed by the L.A.O The said order was marked as Ex.A1O. Inasmuch as the present ac uisition proceedings relates to the adjacent village covered by Ex.A10 the reference Court relying on Ex.AlO has lixed the market value b one time more than the value frxed by the L.A.O. The record furthe discloses that the Government has issued orders on 15.10. 1993, hich was marked as Ex.A6, 4 GSD,J&MGP,J Laas 4 2016 orderir-rg for enhancement of compensation two times more (l +2) than the value hxed by the L.A.O., in respect of the acquisition of structures that were acquired for the purpose of Srisailam projcct. Although the Iearned Assistant Government pleader submits that this project is entirely different one and the said G.O. covered by Ex.A6 which was issued for Srisailam project cannot be apptied in the absence of aly specific G.O. issued for the present project, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention for the reason that the present acquisition proceedings also pertains to Irrigation purpose. tir.en the other contcntion ol the learned Assistant Governmcnt I)leader thar under Ex.A3, the Apex Court has confirmed the earlier fixation of market value b5, reference Court by one more time (t+ 1) than the one hxed by the L.A.O. and therefore, the present enhancement made by the reference Cortrt which is in tune with Ex.A3 cannot be disturbed is also unsustainable for the reason that Ex.A6 issued by the Government granting l+2 has not been brought to the notice of the Apex Court.

7. It is relevant to refer clause (ii) of Ex.A6, which specifies that,,the market ualue of the structures inctuding tte uhich hcts been treated as struchre bg the Lond Acquisition Off.cer in his a utard,; ancl house sites shall be flred ctt three times the ualue ( 1 +2) d.eterminecl bg the Land. Acquisition Officers.', Even though Ex.A6 pertains to the acquisition 5 GSD,J&MGP,J Laas 4 2016 proceedings in respect of Srisailam P ect, the benefit thereof cannot be denied to the present appellants on the mere ground that the present proceedings pertaining to a dif ent project. After a-11, both the acquisition proceedings are for the urpose of irrigation projects Therefore, basing on Ex.A6, this Co is inclined to enhance the market value by two more times than value fixed by the L.A.O

8. In the result, the appeal is allo d enhancing the market value by two more times ( 1+2) than the v ue flxed by the L.A.O. with all other consequential benehts as stip ated under the anended Act. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous appllcati s, if any, shall stand closed JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

15.o9 .2022 gkv/tsr THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRTYADARSINI L.A.A.S.Nos.125 L44 27O and 356 of 2O15 62 and 68 of 2O2l COMMON JUDGMENT : (per Justice G. Sri Devi) The li.s in this batch of Appeals preferred by the claimants pertarn to common acquisition proceedings and therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this cornrnon judgment.

2. Heard learned counsel for the claimants and Sri D. Kiran, iearned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Perused the material available on record

3. The present acquisition was for the purpose o[ submergence of Priyadarshini Joorala Project/ancillary projects under Priyadarshini Joorala Project. This Court uide judgment, dated

15.09.2022 has already elaborately analysed the evidence and considered the identical issue raised in these appea_ls in L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2016. Both the counsel have not disputed the factum of commonality of the evidence and the issue in these appeals and in L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2016, wherein tl-ris Court has allowed the appeal enhancing the market value by two more ) times (1 +2) than the value fixed y the L.A.O. with all other consequential benehts as stipulated der the amended Act.

4. Therefore, following the jud ent passed by this Court in L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2016, dated 15.0 2022 and for the reasons stated therein, a1l these appeals st d disposed of by enhancing the market va,lue of the acquired I d by two more times (1+2) than the value fixed by the L.A.O. with a1l other consequential benehts as stipulated under the ended Act. No order as to Miscellaneous petitions, if an sha-il stand closed JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 016 27 .O9.2022 gkv/ tsr Note: Office to append a copy of the judgment in L.A.A.S.No.4 of with the present judgment. B/o gkv/tsr [ 3'1451 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE TATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERA AD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SE OND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESEN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE AB AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE INAND KUMAR SHAVILI IRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No:61 t 2024 Between:

1. Pedda Hanmanthu, Sio Kanenna, aged 2. Smt. Neelamma, W/o Pedda Hanmanth 3. Anjaneyulu, S/o Pedda Hanmanthu, ag 4. Ravi, S/o Late Chinna Hanmanthu 50 Years, Occ: Agriculture, d aged 45 Years, Occ: Agriculture, 34 Years, Occ: Agriculture, Thikkanna, aged 25 Years, Occ Agriculture,

5. Smt.V.Sharada, W/o Ashi Reddy, aged 6. Praveen Reddy, Sio Ashi Reddy, aged 7. ChinnaVenkat Reddy, Sio Pedda C Agriculture,

8. Pedda Venkat ReddY, Sio Pedda C Agriculture,

9. Pedda Muneppa, S/o Chinna Linganna 10. Govindu, S/o Chinna Linganna, aged 3 11.Bheemanna, S/o Kanenna, aged 40 Y 12.V. Ashi Reddy, S/o Pedda Chenna Re 13. Padmamma, W/o PeddaVenkat Reddy '14. Chinna Venkat ReddY, S/o Pedda Agriculture, '15. Laxmamma, W/o Pedda Chenna Redd 16.V.Ashi Reddy, S/o Pedda Chenna Red lT.PeddaVenkat Reddy, S/o. Pedda C Agriculture,

18. Padmamma, Wo Chinna Venkat Redd 19.Sukarna, S/o Vema ReddY, aged 68 Y All Appellants 1 to '1 9 are Rl/o Na Wanaparthy District. 5 Years, Occ: Agriculture, 0 Years, Occ: Agriculture, enna Reddy, aged 35 Years, Occ enna Reddy, aged 38 Years, Occ: a aged 40 Years, Occ: Agriculture, Years, Occ: Agriculture, rs, Occ: Agriculture, y, aged 42 Years, Occ: Agriculture, aged 30 Years, Occ: Agriculture, henna Reddy, aged 36 Years, Occ , aged 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, y, aged 42 Years, Occ: Agriculture, nna Reddy, aged 38 Years, Occ , aged 28 Years, Occ: Agriculture, ars, Occ: Agriculture, dimalla Village of Atmakur Mandal, ...Appellants/Claimants AND The Land Acquisition Officer, cum-Spe Gadwal. ial Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit, PJP, ...RespondenUResPondent Appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act aggrieved by Order and Decree dated 1 1 -03-2010 passed in O.P.No.66 of 2009 on the fite of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal. 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 Sri Ajgal Ravi Babu, Advocate for the Appellants and GP FOR APPEALS, for the Sole Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the appeal be and hereby isdisposed of; 2. That the market value of the lands with structures belonging to the appellants is enhanced by two more times (1+2) than the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer with all statutory benefits as stipulated under the amended Land Acquisition Act be erd lr'doyb oqtre.'fdt

3. That the appellants be and hereby are not entifled to interest for the delay period of 5'139 days in preferring the appeal; and 4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/.I. NAGA LAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal 2. Two CD Copies Kam/ABK Afi/ HIGH COURT DATED:2210412025 DECREE LAAS.No.61 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL 7 )