The High Court · 2025

Counsel forthe Appellants: Sri Ajgal Ravi Babu Counsel for the Respondent: Gp FOR APPEALS The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT i I i i i ! ; I iI I I I I I .l o THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHI AND AND KUMAR SHAVILI THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TI UMALADEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.69 O 2024 IUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This appeal, under Section 54 o the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is filed aggrieved by the order a d decree, dated 04.12.2O23, passed in O.P.No.19 of 2022 by the le rned Principal Senior Civil |udge, Wanaparthy.

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

3. Learned counsel for the appell ts had contended that the lands along with structures belongi g 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 15.10.1 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 I I I 2 AKS,J & ETD,J L.A.A.S.No.69 of 2024 shuctures for Srisailam Project, and a Division Bench of this Court in L.A.A.S.No.4 of 201,6 has taken a decision that the said G.O applies to all other irrigation projects also and accordingly, allowed L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2016 oide judgment, dated 15.09.2022, enhancing tl're 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 Acquisition Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that following the said judgment, dated 15.09.2022, the very same Division Bench has disposed of L.A.A.S.No.125 of 2015 and batch, zrlde common judgmer-rt dated 27.09.20?2. Aggrieved by the said common juclgment, datecl 27.09.2022, the State has carried the matter to the Honourable Supreme Court by filing S.L.P.(Civil).No.28925 of 2(124 and the same was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court oide order, dated 17.09.2024, confirming tlre common judgment, dated 27.09.2022. Therefore, following the judgment, dated 1,5.09.2022, rendered L.A.A.S.No.4 of 20-16 and also the common judgmen! dated 3 AKS,J & ETD,J L.A.A.S.No.69 ot 2024

27.09.2022, rendered in L.A.A.S.No.1 of 2015 and batch" the present appeal also deserves to be d posed 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 quisition Act.

5. Further, Iearned counsel for e appellants had fairly conceded that the appeal is filed wi a delay of 101 days, as admittedly, the appellants are poor armers and illiterates, and therefore, interest may be denied for e 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 pro 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 is squarely cov by the judgment, dated

15.09.2022, rendered in L.A.A.S.No.4 2076 and also the corunon t, I 4 AKS,J & ETD,J L.A.A.S.No.69 of 2O24 judgment, dated 27.09.2022, rendered in L.A.A.S.No.125 of 2015 and batch, which was confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Cot;rt oide order, dated 17.09.2024, in S.L.P.(Civil).No.28925 of

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

15.09.2022 and 27.09.2022, by enhancing the market value by two more times (1+2) than the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer

8. Accordingly, the appeal 1S disposed of in terms of the judgment, dated 15.09.2022, rendered by this Court in L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2016 and also the common judgment, dated

27.09.2022, renderec'l by this Court in L.A.A.S.No..I25 of 2015 and batch, by enhancing the market value 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 AcquisiLion Act. However, it is made clear that the appellants are not entitled to interest for the delay period in preferring the appeal 5 AKS,J & ETD,J L.A.A.S.No.69 of 2024 Miscellaneous Applications, if y, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. There shall be no o der as to costs. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO . JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE CO Yil SE N OFFICER

1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge at Wa 2. one CC to Sri Ajgal Ravi Babu' Ad 3. Two CCs to GP FOR APPEALS 'Hig aparthy.(with records, if anY) cate [OPUC] Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. Two CD CoPies To, M Note: Total Amount of Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees Sri Ajgal Ravi Babu, Counsel for the Petitione to the "Gazetted Officers Association of Tela Memo as proof of compliance USR No'5531 Ten thousand onlY ) has been Paid bY as directed by the Hon'ble Court vide ana High Court, HYderabad and filed dated 16-06-2025 kam/ABK HIGH COURT DATED:2210412025 ? JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.69 of 2024 .iHE S I4 ( oR 1 2 AUl] 2825 o * T .c) * DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL i 1 B THE HON'BLE JUSTI G. SRI DEVI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTIC M.G. PRTYADARSINI L.A.A.S.No.4 f 2016 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Justice . Sri Devi) This appeal is preferred by the aimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Se or Civil Judge at Narayanpet (hereinafter referred to as "the refere ce Court") in L.A.O.P.No.47 of 2012, d.ated 19.03.2013. By the im gned order, the reference Court has awarded the market value for the houses / structures of the claimants one time more (1+ 1) tharr hat was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.34 of 11, dated 10.11.2011.

2. The houses arld structures f the claimants situated in Anugonda Village, were acquired by t Government for the purpose of submergence under Priyadarshini J orala Project, by issuing draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") on 09.09.2009. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed award on 10.11.2O11 fixing compensation for houses, structures d open places on the basis of prevailing rates as on the date o notification relying upon the valuation hxed by the requisition a thority, Irrigation Department The claimants having received the co pensation under protest, sought for reference to the civil Court und Section 18 of the Act, seeking ) GSD,J&MGP,J Laas 4 2016 enhancement of compensation. By the impugned order, the reference Court has enhanced the market value one time more (1+1) than what was awarded by the Lancl Acquisition Ofhcer. 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 r\ppeals. Perused the materia-l available on record.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that even 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 1+2 times for the houses/srructures acquired in respect of Srisailam Project. It is submitted that inasmuch as the present acquisition of the houses / structures of the claimants also for the purpose of irrigation project i.e., Priyadarshini Joora.la Project, Ex.A6 is equally applies to the case of the claimalts and therefore, the learned counsel 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 Appeais would submit that the G.O. covered by Ex.A6 was issued in respect of Srisailam project and whereas the present acquisition pertains to Priyadarshini 3 GSD,J&MGP,J Laas 4 2076 Joorala Project, for which no spe G.O. was issued by the Government and therefore, Ex.A6 cal ot be taken into consideration. He further submits that as seen fro Ex.Al, the reference Court, in respect of earlier acquisition in O.P.N 611 of 1999, has enhanced the market value by one time more tharl e value fixed by the L.A.O. As seen from Ex.A2, this Court in A.S.No 3375 of 20OO has confirmed the market value fixed in Ex.A1. Even the Apex Court, as seen from Ex.A3, has dismissed the appeal co ming the fixation of the said market value by the reference Court. Therefore, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals, re g on Ex.A3, submits that the market value fixed by the reference ourt is based on evidence and needs no interference by this Court.

6. A perusal of the record disclos s that in respect of the earlier acquisition proceedings pertaining Gaddampally H/o. Anugonda Village, the reference Court has pass orders in O.P.No.29 of 2OO4 and Batch, d,ated, 23.O1.2006 enhanci the market value by one time more than the value fixed by the L.A The said order was marked as Ex.A10. Inasmuch as the present uisition proceedings relates to the adjacent village covered by Ex.Al , the reference Court relying on Ex.A10 has fixed the market value b one time more than the value fixed by the L.A.O. The record furth discloses that the Government has issued orders on 15.1O.f993, hich was marked as Ex.A6, 4 GSD,J&MGP,J Laas 4 2016 ordering for enhancement of compensation two times more (1+2) than the value fixed by the L.A.O., in respect of the acquisition of structures that were acquired for the purpose of Srisailam Project. Although the learned 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 applied in the absence of any specific G.O. issued for the present project, this Court is not inclined to accept the sard contention for the reason that the present acquisition proceedings also pertains to Irrigation purpose. Even the other contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that under Ex.A3, the Apex Court has confirmed the earlier fixation of market value by reference Court by one more time (1+1) than the one fixed by the L.A.O. and therefore, the present enhancement made by the reference Court which is in tune with Ex.A3 calnot be disturbed is also unsustainable for the reason that Ex.A6 issued by the Government granting 1+2 has not been brought to the notice of the Apex Court.

7. It is relevant to refer clause (ii) of Ex.A6, which specifres tl:,at " the market ualue of the structures including utell ulhich has been treated os struchtre bg the Land Acquisition Ofjicer in his a u.;ard; and house sites shall be frxed at three times the ualue (1+2) determined 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 ect, the benefit thereof carnot be denied to the present appellants on the mere ground that the present proceedings pertaining to a rent project. After all, both the acquisition proceedings are for the purpose of irrigation projects Therefore, basing on Ex.A6, this C is inclined to enhance the market value by two more times than e value fixed by the L.A.O

8. In the result, the appea-l is all d enhancing the market value by two more times (1+2) thal the v ue fixed by the L.A.O. with all other consequential benefits as stip ated under the amended Act. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applicati ns, if any, shal1 stand closed JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI WSTICE M.G. PRTYADARSINI

15.o9.2022 gkv/tsr 6 GSD,J&MGP,J Laas 4 2016 THI HON'BLE JU E G. SRI DEVI AI{D THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTI E M.G. PRTYADARSINI L.A.A.S.Nos.125 144 27O and,3 of 2O15 62 anil 68 of 2O2l COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Justice Sri Devi) The lis in this batch of Appe s preferred by the claimants pertain to common acquisition pr ceedings and therefore, they are heard together and being sposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard learned counsel for e claimants and Sri D.Kiral, learned Assistalt Government ader for the respondent Perused the material available on r cord

3. The present acquisition was r the purpose of submergence of Priyadarshini Joorala Proje t/ancillary projects under Priyadarshini Joorala Project. Thi Court uide judgment, dated

15.09.2022 has already elaborat analysed the evidence and considered the identical issue ed in these appeals 1n L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2076. Both the sel have not disputed the factum of commonality of the evi ence and the issue in these appeals and in L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2 16, wherein this Court has allowed the appeal enhancing th market vaJue by two more 2 times (1+2) than the value frxed by the L.A. O. with all other consequential benefits as stipulated under the amended Act.

4. Therefore, following the judgment passed by this Court in L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2016, dated 15.09.2022 and for the reasons stated therein, all these appeals stand disposed of by enhancing the market value of the acquired land by two more times (1+2) than the value fixed by the L.A.O. with all other consequential benefits as stipulated under the amended Act. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shal1 stand closed. JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

27.O9.2022 gkv/tsr Note: Office to append a copy of the judgment in L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2016 with the present judgment. B/o gkv/tsr [ 3445 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDER BAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY S TWO THOUSAND AN OND DAY OF APRIL TWENTY FIVE PRESE T THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE AB AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE INAND KUMAR SHAVILI IRUMALA DEVI EADA Between: L.A.A.S.No:69 F 2024 Ashanna S/o. Ayyappa, age: 65 years, / Occ: Agriculture, R-/o. Chinthareddipall Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. village,

2. Polamma Wo. Saireddl,. Age: 59 1,ears,r Occ: Agriculturc, R/o. Chinthareddipally v Ahlakur mandal. Wanaparthy District. lage,

3. Rangareddy S/o. Hanumanthu Reddy, Ag Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally v Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. 35 years,, lage,

4. Hanumanthu S/o. Hanumanthu, Age: 58 ye Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally v Atmakr-rr mandai. Wanaparthy District. rs, l1age-

5. Manyamma Wo. Ashanna, Age: 53 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chintharcddipally v Atmakul mandal, Wanaparthy District. lage,

6. Veemareddy S/o. Peda Laxmanna, Age:52 Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally v Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. years, lage,

7. I.Iallareddy S/o. Pedda Laxmanna, Age:57 Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Anugonda village, Matthal mandal, Wanaparthy District.. years, l I 2

8. G. Narsimhulu S/o. Venkanna, age: 59 years. Occ: Agriculture, It/o. Chinrhareddipally village, Atmakur marldal, Wanaparthl, District.

9. G.Laxmanna S/o. Venkatanna, Age: 49 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/ohinrhareddipalty village. Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthv District.

10. G.Dharmareddy S/o. Venkanna, Age: 3 1 1,ears, Occ: Agriculture, DOPIIO. Chinthareddipally village Atmakur mandal. Wanaparthy District. I I . Chakali Linganna S/o. Kasimanna, Age: 64 years, Occ: Agriculture. IVo. Chinthareddipa[y villagc. Atmakur mandal, Walaparthy Distl.ict.

12. Bheemakl<a W/o. Ashantra. Aee: 58 r,ears, Occ: Agricultr-rre. lVo. (lh intharedd ipal lv villagc, Atrnakur manda[, Wanapafihv District.

13. Saireddy S/o. Pedda Venkanna, Aee: 59 years. Occ: Agriculture,lVo. C h inrhzrreddipally village, Atrnakur mandal, Wanaparlhl, Distr.ict-.

14. Pedda Hanutnanthu S/o. Venliatanna, Age: 62 years, Occ: Agriculturc, IVo. Cth inthareddipally villagc, Atmakur mandal, Wanapa(h1, District.

15. Chinna Hanuntanlhu S/o. Venliatanna, Age : 60 years. Occ: Agriculturc. R/o. Chinthareddipalll, village. Atmakur mandal. \\ranaparthy District.

16. Venkatamrna \\//o. 1'h irupathireddy, Age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally village, Atrnakur mandal, Wanaparthy Districi.

17. K.Ramulu S/o. Chinna Vcnkatanna, Age: 54 years, Occ: Agriculturc, Il/o. Chinthareddipally village. Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. J

18. G.Laxma reddy S/o. Savaranna, Age: 56 Occ: Agriculture, Rio. Chinthareddipally Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. ears, / illage,

19. G.Raghavendra reddy S/o. Savaranna, Ag Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. : 35 years,t illage,

20. Savaranna S/o. Chinna Humanthu, Age: 7 Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. ]ears,; illage,

21. Lingamma W/o. Savaranna, Agc72 y Occ: Agriculture, R-/o. Chinthareddipally Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. illage,

22. K.Kamaladevi Wo. Ramulu Goud, Age: Occ: Agriculture, R./o. Chinthareddipally Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy Distlict. 2 year*, illage, 23- K.Venkatesh S/o. Rajappa, Age:47 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. illage,

24. K.Nagireddy Sio. Narsappa, Age: 48 ye Occ: Agriculture, R.io. Chinthareddipally Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. illage,

25. K.Linganna Wo. Pedda Rajanna, Age: 5 Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally Atmakur manda[, Wanaparthy District. years, illage,

26. K. Anjaneyulu S/o. Pedda Rajanna, Age: Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy Distlict. 5 years, llage,

27. K.Nagireddy S/o. Pedda Rajanna, Age: 3 Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. years, llage, 4

28. Laxmaiah Age 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipal Iy village. Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District.

29. Anand S/o. Savaranna, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally village, Atmakur mandal. Atmakur mandal, Wanaparti'y'District

30. .Krishnaiah S/o. Nagappa, Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculturc, Wo. Chinthareddipally vi[age, Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District.

31. Rangareddy S/o. Nagappa, Age: 62 1,e315, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chintharedd ipally viIage, Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District.

32. Pedda Chennappa, S/o. pedda Ramanna, Agc: 5g 1,ear.s. Occ: Agriculture, R./o. Chinthareddipally uillrg", Atmakur mandal, Wanaparlhv Distr.ict.

33. Kurmaiah S/o. Rayappa, Age: 45 years. Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Chinthareddipally village, Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthl, District.

34. Pedda Chennappa S/o. Kurmaiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculrure, R/o. Chinthareddipally village , Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District.

35. Chennappa S/o. Kunnanna, Age: 57 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Ch inthareddipally village, Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District.

36. C.Madhavareddy S/o. Savaranrra, Age. 5g years. Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally village, Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District.

37. C.Shivareddl, S/o. Savaranna, Age: 49 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipaliy viliage, Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. 5

38. Chukka Anjaney'ulu S/o. Hanumanthu, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. e: 48 years, , illage,

39. C. Venkatreddy S/o. Hanumanthu, Age: Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. 6 years, illage,

40. Chinna Satyanna S/o. Balappa, Age: 65 Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. ars, illage,

41. Chukka Pedda Laxmanna S/o. Balappa, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. ge. 62 years, t illage,

42. Chukka Venkatamma Wo. Chinna Laxm Occ: Agriculture, IVo. Chinthareddipally Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. nna, Age: 58 years, illagc,

43. Chukka Shivareddy S/o. Balappa, Age: 5 Occ:.Agriculture, R./o. Chinthareddipally Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. years, illage,

44. Saireddy S/o. Chinnaiah. Age: 75 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. illage,

45. Venkatramulu S/o. Venkatreddy, Age: 55 Occ: Agriculture, R./o. Chinthareddipally Atmakur mandal. years, illage,

46. Laxmareddy S/o. Narsimhulu, Age: 64 y Occ: Agriculture, Chiathareddipally vill Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. s e,

47. Marati Savaramma W/o. Chinna Nalsimh Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. lu, Age: 75 years, illage, 6

48. Chinna Hanmanthu S/o. Thippanna, Age: 57 years, . Occ: Agriculture, R./o. Chinthareddipally village, Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District.

49. Pedda Hanmanthu S/o. Thippanna, Age: 65 y"ur., O".l Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally village, Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District. l l

50. Narayrna Sio. Thippanna, Age: 451ears. I Occ: Agriculture, R /o. Chinthareddipatly village, Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthl. District.

51. Ramulamma Wo. Thippanna Age: 78 years, r Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipal ly village, Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District.

52. Hanumanthu S/o. Bheemanna, Age: 74 1,c2.r, Occ: Agriculture, lVo. Chintharedd ipal ly village. Atmakur r-naltdal, Wanaparthl, District.

53. K.Narsamrna Wo. Balappa, Age: 65 ),'ears, . Occ: Agriculture, lVo. Chinthareddipally villagc. Atmakur mandal, Wanaparthy District.

54. P.Sudarshanreddy S/o. Venkah-eddy, Age: 58 years,z Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally villagc. Atmakur mandal, Wanaparlhl, District.

55. Ramulu Sio. Lingareddy, Age: 61vears,, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally village, Atmakur mandal, Wanaparth1, District. 56. Raghu S/o. Ramudu. Age: 35 1ears. / Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chinthareddipally village. Atmakur mandal, Wanaparihy District. And The Special Deputy Collector, L A. Unit, RLISP-iI, Armakur, Wanaparthy. AppellantsiC la imants Respondent/ Rcspondent I i I I i I I I I I I I I I t Appeal filed under Section 54 of L.A dated 04-12-2023 passed in LAOP.No.19 of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy. aggrieved by the order and decree 2022 on the file of the Court of the The appeal coming on for hearing, grounds filed in the Appeal, the Judgment a record in the case and upon hearing the Advocate for the Appellants and GP FOR AP upon perusing the Memorandum of d Decree of. the Lower Court and the rguments of Sri Ajgal Ravl Babu, EALS for the Respondent . This Court doth order and decree as follows

1. That the appeal be and hereby is disp

15.09.2022 rendered in L.A.A.S. No. 4 daled 27.09.2022 rendered in L.A.A.S. N 2. That the Market value is enhanced by fixed by the Land Acquisition Offtcer; 3. That the appellants shall be entitled t under the amended Land Acquisition Act 4. That appellants are not entitled to inte preferring the appeals; and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs. ,1 of in terms of the judgment dated 2016 and the common judgment 25 of 2015 and batch; more times (1+2) than the value all statutory benefits as stipulated st for the delay period 101 days in //TRUE CO Yil Sd/- K, SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR -Ary SECTI FICER To,

1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge at Wan 2. Two CD Copies parthy kam/ABK HIGH COURT DATED:2210412025 DECREE LAAS.No.69 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL rAr g \4