The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respc'ndent Nos'{ to 7 and 18 to 21 and24 Counsel for the Respondent No'23 Counsel for the Resp'ondent Nos'25 and 26 : SRI G' MADHUSUDI IAN REDDY : SRI A' SUDERSHAN REDDY : SRI R' S' MIJRTI{Y The Court delivered ltre following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. WSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EN)A APPEAL SUIT NO.3 220 0F 2004 JTIDGMENT: G)er Hon'blE Smt. Justice Tirumdla Deui Eada) This appeal, under Section 54 of the tand Acquisition Act' 1894, (for short the Act') is preferred by the Special Deputy Collector, LA Unit, South Central Railway New Broad Gauge Line' Karimangar, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30'12'20O3 passed in O.P.No.91 of 1997 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli (hereinafter referred to as 'the reference Court')'

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the reference Court'

3. The facts of the case in brief are that on a requisition made by the Special Deputy Collector, LA Unit, South Central Railway' the lands to an extent of Ac.8-9 guntas and lOO Sq'Yards' situated at Cheekurai Village of Peddapalli Mandal, were acquired for the purpose of formation of Broad Guage RailwaY Line. A draft of the Act was Published in the notif,rcation under Section 4( 1) Gazctte No.12, on 25.04. 1995. After following due Procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer has $anting Rs. 16,000/- per acre to category No'l lands' Rs' 15'OOO/- passed an award on 08-04.1996 \ 2 AKS,J & ETD,,I A No.3220 2004 per acre tc (:a1€Flory No.II lands, Rs. 12,000/- per acre lo category No.tll lands irr rl also awarded Rs.26,649 l- to three v,ells He also granted Rs. I 0() / - to each tappable toddy tree an<l Rs. 16( r/ - to two tappable S e;'rd lLi trees, towards compensation. Aggriev :d by the said awarci, thi claimants have made an application for reference and the s;trr:re was referred under Section 18 of ttre I ct to the reference ()o ur t .

4. The rrrfe rence Court has framed the following loints for consideratr o r "1. iVl.rether the award No.4, dt.8.4.1996 p,assrC by the La:-rd Acquisition Officer is not reasonabie and adeqrrat,:2

2. Wl-rether the claimants are enti led to get enha rced compensation to the acquired lan'ls, vells and tre:s, if so, at what rate?"

5. To prcve their case, the claimants got exarnined P Vs 1 to 8 and got r:re r1..r<l Exs.Al to A7. One D.Venk.iteshan , Special Deputy TzLhsi.ctar in South Central Railway's, SF,ecrz I Deputy Coilector's Ci fficer at Karimnagar got examined ar; R!y' I z nd Ex.B I was marked.

6. Base d o:l the evidence on record, the reft:rence ( tourt has ordered tL.e cc rnpens at;ton @ Rs.4O,000/- per acr,- fc r all the acquired lrrLd; for the wells by one time over and i bove the t I I a*-------"::::t:3:t'r 3 AKs,J & EID,J As No.3220 20Ot compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Offrcer, for the toddy tree @ Rs.200/- and for the Sendhi tree Rs.150/- each, apa-rt from awarding statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said order and decree passed by the reference Court, the Special Deputy Collector has preferred the present appeal.

7. Heard tl:e submissions of Smt.T.Suhasini, Iearned Standing Counsel for tJ'.e appellant, Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and 18 to 21 arrd 24, Sri G.Madhusudan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.25 and 26.

8. L,earned appellant counsel has submitted that the Reference Court has erroneously enhanced the compensation to Rs.4O,O00/- per acre for all t}le acquired lands and for the wells by one time over and above the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Ofhcer, and that it is without any basis. He further argued that the claimants have not frled any documentary proof to show the nature of crops and the income earned by them on the acquired lands and that the reference Court should not have relied upon Exs.Al & A2, the sale deeds which are not comparable to the value of the land acquired and that the entire lands do not fall under one category while the reference Court has enhanced the compensation by treating them under one category. He therefore, prayed to set 4 AKS,J & ETD,J I ; No.3220 2004 aside the lrde r and decree of the Reference Coult brr all rwing this appeal.

9. The itralnr:d respondent counsel has prayed to r- phold the order and d,:c-,:,: passed by the reference Court stating .hat it is a well reasoned crder.

10. Basr:d on the above rival contentions, this Court l -ames the following po: nt s lor determination: 1 2 W rether the claimants are not entitler for :;n h:rncement of compensation? W rether the order and decree of the refe ence llc rr :t need any interference?

3. l'o .r'hat relieP I 1. POINI" Nr().1: a) A pe nrsir of Ex.Bl/the award passed by t"an d A;quisition Officer, re vr:a s t-hat the sale transaction at 51 No. 13 dated 3O.12.199t- )er:,tins to dry land in survey No.22 and it was solcl @)3O,OOO|- per 3cr:e in the same village and there are sr me other sale transaclions shown in Kothapalli village of pt:dderpal . Mandal, wherein the rirr land was shown to have been sold (! R: 5O,7OO|- per acre at Sil. \r,.22 dated 07.12.1992 in survey No.llgg and 406. The Land Accrr sition Ofhcer has not considered the sales at Sl-Ngr13 b:carr;,: a meager extent is sold under the ;aid sale i I l 5 Arc,J & ETD,J AS No.3220 20@1 transactions i.e. to an extent of Ac.0-O4 guntas and that he has not considered the sale transaction at Sl.No. 14 because of the strategic position of the said land, which is near Vaagu and are fertile with red chelka lands and tJlat there is no similarity by geographical position between t.Ile lands under acquisition and the said lands. The Land Acquisition OIIicer has observed that the lands shown at S1.No.22 are dry lands of Kothapalli village and that Kothapalli transactions are obtained for fixing-up the land value for wet lands of Cheekurai Village, since there were no wet land sales at Cheekurai village and the dry lands sale of Kothapalli shown at Sl.No.22 is discarded as the dry lands sale statistics of Cheekurai village are available. b) A perusal of the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 reveals that PWI is the husband of one P.Sujatha who is one of the vendors in the sale transaction shown under Exs.Al arrd A2. A perusal of Ex.Al reveal that the land to an extent of Ac.O. 13 guntas was sold in survey Nos.605, 6O6/e,583, 631, 6321e, 602, 603 and 604 @ Rs.22,500/-. A perusal of Ex.A2 reveals that the land to an extent of Ac.0-15 guntas was sold in survey No.398 and 4O6/a @ Rs. IO,OOO/- per acre and that they were paid Rs.3,8OO/- for O.15 gun tas. 6 AKs,J & ETD,J / S No.3220 2004 c) PWI rlecc sed that the acquired lalds are situate I adjacent to the lanc s .r hich were sold under Exs.Al anci A2 and that Kothapalli zrnl Cheekurai villages are situated adjace: t to each other and tl:.aL I he acquired lands are similar in all asp ,cts to the lands und:r Ex s .A 1 and A2. d) PW2 is lte claimant No. 19 in the present oasr,, hi ; evidence reveals thzLt the ir lands are under SRSP irrigation anrl thr.t they are wet lands ald they used to raise paddy and that all th, acquired lands beicn,4 ,() one category. He further deposed tha the land that was rc qrr red would fetch Rs. 1,60,000/ - per :tcre and that cheekurai v lltq;: is merged in Peddapalli township, thr t a sociai welfare hc st ei is situated in their village, and .leat tht acquired lands are suilzLlr e lor house sites. e) PW3 i s i L resident of Karimnagar and is an ar< hitectural engineer, 'r'1: o s: evidence reveals that he submitte<l a report by estimating t,lr e viLlue oI the wells. 0 An ore rall perusal of the oral and documenr_ary evi<,ence that was placec l:,e il e the reference Court reveals th;lt Chee <urai and Kothapalli v llzq1,:s are adjacent to each other arrd even the Land Acquisitior O'Ji,:er has relied upon the sale trzinse :tions of Kothapalli [or Ii<ing the compensation with regard to r.he , lry lands, w!*!!wE_=r-:' 7 AKS,J & ETDJ A5 No.3220 2004 which proves the fact that Kothapalli is al adjacent village to Chekurai. The sale transactions reflected at Sl.Nos. 13, 14 and 22 which are shown to be highest are not considered by the Land Acquisition Offrcer for the reasons as discussed supra. d On examining the sale statistics in Ex.B1 arld also the sale deeds that are tiled under Exs.Al and A2 it is held t]lat the lands that were acquired, fetch more value than what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Ofhcer. Therefore, it is held that the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation and that the enhanced compensation of Rs.40,000/- per acre that is awarded by the reference Court is justifred. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

12. POTNT NO.2: In view of the reasoned hnding arrived at Point No.l, this Court holds that the order and decree of the reference Court do not need any interference.

13. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order and decree dated 30.12.2O03 passed in O.P.No.91 of 1997 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli. No costs. / 8 AKS,J & ETD,J , 5 No.3220 2004 Misr:ellaru:ous Petitions pending, if any, shall s[an< closed. SD/" 8' :;ATYAVATHI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ----------") ---- SECT ON OFFICER To, 1 . The Senior (lir'il . udge, Peddapalli (with records if any) 2. One CC to l/l/s. T. Suhasini, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to {ir A. Siudershan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to {)r R fi. tvlurthy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to lir G lrladhusudhan Reddy, Advocate [OPIJC] 6. Two CD Conies Plp/PSL p'A _ \f' HIGH COURT DATED:06103,1,2025 JUDGMENT+I]IECREE AS.No.3220 ot 2004 DISMISSING 'THE APPEAL WITHOUT COI}TS. E 6 ). ? (2 drafts) 1-". .l' l4 {\ ( [1 ?th t9, * t '.7 {'- /, * IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Between: APP EAL SUIT NO: 3220 OF 2004 The Special Deputy Collector,, LA Unit, South Central Railway New Broad Guage Line, Karimnagar ...APPELLANT/REFERRINGING OFFICER AND

1. Egolam Chandraiah, 65 years,Goud S/o Lasmaiah R/o Cheekurai S/o Lasmaiah(V), Peddapalli (M)

2. Rontala Srinivas Reddy, S/o Linga Reddy, 28 yrs, 3. Md. Samdani, S/o Shaik Ahmed, 25 yrs 4. Jakkula Tirupathi, S/o Venkati, 30 yrs 5. Manuti Yellaiah, S/o Sailu, 60 yrs Erakala Caste 6. Narra Papaiah, S/o Yellaiah, 7. Chalkala Mondaiah, S/o Veerappa, 65 yrs, 8. Gurrala Komaraiah, S/o Mallaiah, 26 yrs, 9, Jakkula Ramaiah, S/o Mallaiah, 70 yrs, 10. Lankadasari. Narsaiah, S/o Pochaiah .l 1. Mondeddu Papaiah, S/o Lingaiah, 35 yrs, l2.Jakkula Radhamma, Wo Venkataiah' 60 yrs 1 3. Jakkula Kistaiah, S/o Chandraiah l4 Jakkula Agaiah, S/o Rajalingu l5.Jakkula Ramachandram(died) per LR RR 25 & 26' 16. Jakkula Mondaiah, S/o Rajaiah 17.Kola Rajeswari, S/o Rajalingu, 65 yrs lB.Uppu Hanumaiah, S/o Bhoomaiah,45 yrs' 19.Uppu Srinivas, S/o Rajamallu,25 yrs 20. Komirisetti Hanumakka, Wo Rajaiah' 40 yrs 2't. Uppu Radhamma, Wo Govindu, 55 Yrs 22.lJppu Bakkaiah, S/o Rajalingu Died per 1.R., R-24 (Claimants No.1 to 22 are R/o. Cheekurai (v) Peddapalli)(M)

23.The General Manager,, S.C. Railway, Secunderabad 24.UppuLatchamma,,-Wo.LateUppuBakkaiah,R/o.Chikurai(V),Peddapalli (M), Karimnagar District. in_z+ is nrougtrt on record as LR of the deceased R-22 as per court order dated 03-01-2007 in LAASMP 2926lOG)

25.Jakkula Kanakir ah, S/o Late Jakkula Ramachandram. age 45 ,,ears, Occ: Agriculture, [?./c, (]hilukuri Village, Peddapalli Mandal, Karirnnar)ar District. 26. Jakkula Thirtrpir tri, Sio Late Jakkula Ramachandram, age 40 1 :ars, Occ: Agriculture, f?./c, (lhilukuri Village, Peddapalli Mandal, Kalmnzrgar District. RR 25 and 116 ar: brought on record as LRs of deceased 'R-1t as per c.o.dt 26-11-09 in t A,\SMP-988/2009. ...CLAIMANT S/Rl:SPONDENTS Appeal fileC urcer section 54 of L.A. Act of 1894 againsl the Judgment and Decree dated 30.12.2)A3 passed in O.P.No.91 of 1997 on the file of he court of the Senior Civil Judge: )ec clapalli. This appeal comin-ct cr for hearing and upon perusing the r3rounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree, cf the Court below and the material papers in he appeal and upon hearing the a'gurnents of Smt. T. Suhasini, Advocate for the A cpellant, Sri A. Sudershan Reddy', ,Advccate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 and l8 k 21 and 24, Sri R.S. Murthy, Advr)cat(l lor the Respondent No.23 and Sri G. Madhu,;udhan Reddy, Advocate for the Re sp c,rrdent Nos.25 and 26. This Court doth Order :rnd Decree as follows: '1. That the Apl>e;r Suit be and hereby is dismissed uphol,Jing the order and decree datec 3l I2.2003 passed in O.P.No.91 of 1997 by the learned Senior Civil Judge ar Fe cldapalli; and

2. That there ;hall lrr: no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Senior Crvr 2. Two CD Ccpie-" n \ \ i I rdge, Peddapalli SD/- B. SATYAVATHI JOINI REGISTRAR I Secr ror.,t oFFtcER i' '\-i (2 drafts) HIGH COURT DATED:0614312025 DECREE AS.No.3220 o12004 DISMISSING 'THE APPEAL WITHOUT COIiTS. + ! (! b 2l