The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c r tumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court r ray be pleased grant interim stay of all further proceedings in EP No. 169/201,t in pursuance to the award dated 25.03.2010 made in OP No.7/2006 on the file , f Senior Civil Judge, N izamabad Counsel for the Appellant : Government Pleader for Apgr rals Counsel for the Respondent : Sri V Manohar Rao The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRT IUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY L.A.A.S.No.128 OF 2011 I UDGMENT: (Per Hon'bte Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shaviti) I t When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant submitted that the subject matter of the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment, dated 04.09.2025, rendered by this Court in L.A.A.S.No.10 of 2010, and following the aforesaid judgment, the present appeal is also liable to be dismissed.

2. Leamed counsel for the respondents did not dispute the said fact.

3. In view of the said submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed following the judgmenf dated 04.09.2025, rendered by this Court in L.A.A.S.No.10 of 2010

4. Accordingly, following the judgment, dated 04.09.2025, rendered by this Court in L.A.A.S.No.10 of 2010, and for reasons alike, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. \ \ Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending i.r this appeal shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- N. SRIHARI I)EPUry REGISTRAR i( SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The S_enior Civit Judge, at Nizamabad. (With records) 2. Two CCs to the Government plealer ior Appeals, Stir e of Telangana, High 3. One CC to Sri V Manohar Rao, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies Court Buildings, at Hyderabad (OUT) DUPSL o HIGH COURT DATED:10/09/2025 JUDGMENT LAAS.No.128 of 2011 DISMISSING THE APPEAL .{ I IHt i,74 o( o O * 23 il 2126 * I / THE HON'BI,E Szu JUSTTCE ABHINAND KUMARSHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITT RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Land Acouisition APPeal Suit No.10 of 2010 .IUDGI\IENl- : (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy) 1'his r\ppeat is preferred by the appellant/Land Acquisition Oftlcer aggriercd by the order dated 15.04.2009 (hereinafier "vill be re f'cr-red as thc 'impugned order') passed by the learned Senior Civil Ju<Jgc, Nizamabad (tbr short 'reference court') in O.P. No l oi 2005. u'hcrein the market value of the subject land as fixed by- 'tfic t-and ,\ctruisition Olflcer was enhanced from Rs.45,000i- per ,.1 aJrc to Rs.l.-15.000r- pcr square meter ).. |or tlte sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties ir'ill be relcrred tr) .ls Per their status before the reference Coufl BlllEl' Fz\CTS l. 'l'he brief fhcts ol the case are that the agricultural lands of ttre responrlcnts 'c laimants situated in Chittapur Vitlage Balkonda t"landal rvere acquired by the Government tbr thc l AKSJ.i VRKR. J r,AAS r0 20 t0 purpose of excavation of II Iift of D.3 ol Laxmi (_ rnal of S.R.S.p. Project Reserv'oir. Accordingly an award r as passed on

22.09.2003 by fixing the market value of ac< uired lands at Rs.45,000r- pcr acrc. Having dissatisfied with the fixation of market value b,r thc [_and Acquisition Of frccr, th: claimants fited O.P.No.3 of 2005 seckinq lo enhance the market r i lue of acquired lands fiorn Rs.45,000,,- per acre to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Olllcer opposecl the claim macle by the claimants. -[ he claintants rclied upon oral evidenct, rf pWs I and 2 and documentary cr idence under Exs.A I to A,5 On the other hand, no ora I cr. idcncc r.r.as adduccd on bchalf of he respondent, however, a col)] ol'thc atard pas)cd b). the L,r rd Acquisition Olficer ,u','as ntarkcd as L_x.B l. On consirlt:r ing the rival conte.tiorrs. tlrc r-cri'rc.cc courl fircd the market ue of acquired lands at Rs. l.-1-;.00() - pcr acrL- as against rhe nr rrket value of 'rr Rs.45,000;- [)cr acrc as tlred br thc t,and AcclLi;ition Officer. Aggrieved bl rhe sanre. the Land Acquisition Olllcr .preferred present Appcal to sct aside the inrltugnccl o-ler and pass appropriatc o rders. /t AKS.J & VRKR. J LAAS IO 2OIO 4 5 I'leard both sides and perused the record. Admittedly, the claimants have not preferred any appeal against the impugned order seeking further enhancement of the market value.

6. Norv the point tirr determination is Whether there are any substantial grounds to interf-ere rvith the order dated 15.04.2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad in O.P. No.3 of 2005?

1. POINT: Thc contention of the learned counsel tbr the appeltant is that thc relcrence court fixed the land value at Rs.1.15,000 - pcr acrc w ithout any basis. It is further contended that thc rcterence ctl u rt ought to have seen that the L-and Accluisition Otficer haci takcr.r into consideration Ex'Al, w'hich is a scttlcnrcnt in Lok ;\clalat bctr.r'een claimant of a neighbouring Villagc and the [-and ,,\ccluisition Ofticer in respect of lands accluired lirr the san-re pu+)osc .l'lre

8. reference coutt cousidered the oral evidence of clairnant Nos.l and 2, ',vho sctc crarnined as PWs I and 2. The clairnants -t AKS.J .t VRKi. J L,\AS l0 2r)10 relied upon Exs.A3 to A5 pahanies to establistr t I rr the clairrants cultivated turmeric, maizc, sajja, groundnut, ch i iies, \,egetables and other commercial crops in the acquired lar < s through bore wells and rvells with motor pump sets.

9. As per the contention of the claimants, rhc l nd acquired by the Land Acquisition Ol'llcer in Vanne[ (b) Villag t lbr excavation of flood flow canal and the cornpcnsation lbr : ose lands was settled between clailnants and the Land Acquisiticr Otllcer in Lok Adalath held on 22.12.?.OOl and the ratcs \\cr( fixed in Lok Adalath were acceptcd b1, the Governmcnt '".irlt: G.O.Ms.No.56 dated23.04.2002. u hich is nrarked as Ex.A I .

10. As per the evidcncc oi P\\'2 couplcd u i [r pahanies in respect of land sitr.ratcd in S1'.No. t58 olChirtapur t!-: acquired land betonging to PW2 is a single crop $ ct [and l htLs. i is amply clear that the acquired Iands bclonSinq to clairnant: arr' l: rile lands. 11 Ex.A2 is thc sale clccd executed b1 on.' [:nrr.Lr Lingrnna in respect of land, rvhich is siruarcd at Vanncl (b) \'illr lc of Ilalkonda Mandal. The lands acquircd in t.he present casc itrE \ erv nearer to ) AKS.J & VRKR, J LAAS t0 2010 Vannel (b) Village, where the land was sold under Ex.A2 at Rs. I,24,9031 per acre

12. Thus, it is clear that the relerence court not only considered Ex.A2 sale deed, u,lrerein the rate of the land was shown as Rs. 1,24,90ir- per acre, but also considered G.O.Ms.No.56 dated

23.04.2002 under Ex.Al, ,,vherein Lok Adalath hxed the rate of land at Rs. 1,,15,000i- per acre and the same was accepted by the Govemmcnt and also paid thc compensation to the claimants. It is pertinent to note that the Land Acquisit.ion Officer is a consenting pa(y to the Lok Adalath Auard passcd between claimants and the Land Acquisition Olllcer in Lok Adalath held on 22.12.2001 Thus, the Land ,{ccluisition Ot1icer having consented for fixing the market value at the rate ol t{s. 1..15,000/- per acre in respect of lands situated at Vannel (b) Villagc, ',vhich is very nearer to the acquired lands. cannot 11ip-flop on thc said hxation of market value by contending lhat the claimanrs in the present case are not entitled for any enhanccnrent of market value in respect of acquired lands. 6 & VI{KR. J L.{AS t0 2010 ^KS.J

13. Even otherwise, the sale consideration un,i:r Ex.A2, dated

22.12.1993 is Rs.1,24,903/- per acre. It is r< be seen rhat notification under Section a(l) of the Act vas issued on

25.01.2001 i.e., eight years alrer execution ol Ex . ,2. -['hus. is every probability of enhancement of market vr lue ol the said land in a span ofeight years. Thus, by considerinrr either Ex.AI or Ex.A2, the rate of market value in rcspect of a: luired lands as fixed by the Land Acquisition Otficer at Rs.45,00(r . pcr acre is nor j ust and reasonable.

14. When the claimants have adduced cr r ain oral and documentary evidence to substantiate thcir claim, I dut1, is cast on the Land Acquisition Officcr to rebur such eviderr,: ._ [n the instant case, except the award copy under Ex.Ll l, no otlr, r clocurnelltary evidence or oral evidence was acltluccd on bclt I {' ol- thc Land Acquisition officer to rebut the er icrerce aclducecl r . bchal'ol' the claimants. Without adducing any evidence an I rvithout even rebutting the evidence adduced on bchall of tht. clairnants. the appellant cannot succeed in the prescnt appeal, rn.: .c particularly, / AKS.J & VRKI. J t"{As l0 2010 when there are no substantial grounds to set aside the impugned l order. L5. The reference court observed in the impugned order that as seen from Ex.B I i.e., a,,vard passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, only Rs.45,0001- per acre was paid which is far less than the rates fixed lbr the lands in G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 23.04.2002. The reference courl tirrther observed in the impugned order that as rightly submitted by PWs I and 2, the land acquired in this case are single crop wet land and they are sirnilar to the land acquired by Land Acquisition Otllcel in f-ertitity as ttrey are very close to the lands that were acquircd in Vannel (B). Thus, it can be held that the reference courl attcr considcring all the aspccts has anived to appropriate conclusion of cnhancing thc market value of the acquired lands fionr Rs.-{5,000- pcr acrc to Rs. I,45,000/- per acre Therefore, the contention of tlie [earned counsel tbr the appellant that the reference courl enharlccd tl-rc niarket value of the acquired lands without any basis is unsustainable 8 {KS.J & VRKR. J LAAS IO 2OIO

16. In vieu, of the above facts and circumstanc,: , we are of the considered view that the appellant failed to estatl sh any tenable grounds so as to interfere with the well reasoned r rder passed by the reference court. Hence, this appeal is dcr oi I ol merits and liable to be dismissed.

17. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. [n th: c irc u rnsruLrces. there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applicr t ons- il anv, in the appeal, shall stand closed. ABHINAND KUNI.., T SHAVILI..I Dare: 04.09.2025 AS VAKITI RANI:\KRlSIi i.\ RIIDD\'. .f [ 34s0 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY LAND ACQUISITION FIRST APP EAL NO: 128 OF 2011 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Nizamabad District. Spl Deputy Collector, SRSP., Pochampad, ...AppellanUReferring Officer AND

1. Pathani Anjaiah, S/o.Narasaiah, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o.Padgal Village, Vailpur Mandal, Nizamabaed District.

2. Kottala Ramulu, S/o.Pedda Ashanna, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o.Padgal Village, Vailpur Mandal, Nizamabaed District.

3. Smt.K.Premala, Wo.Ganga Reddy, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o.Padgal Village, Vailpur Mandal, Nizamabaed District.

4. Misala Sundana, Wo.Chinna Rajanna, Occ Agriculturist, R/o.Padgal Village, Vailpur Mandal, Nizamabaed District.

5. Are Rajeshwar Rao, S/o.Mallaiah, Occ. Agnculturist R/o.Padgal Village, Vailpur Mandal, Nizamabaed District.

6. Mukunda Chinna Rajeshwar, S/o.Chinna Rajanna, Occ- Agriculturist R/o.Padgal Village, Vailpur Mandal, Nizamabaed District.

7. Meesala Vasanth Rao, S/o-Jeevan rao, Agriculturist R/o.Padgal Village, Vailpur Mandal, Nizamabaed District.

8. Byagari Prakash, S/o,Ganga ram, Occ. Agriculturist R/o.Padgal Village, Vailpur Mandal, Nizamabad District.

9. Maru Pedda Ramesh, S/o.Narsaiah, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o.Padgal Village, ...Respondents/Claimants Vailpur Mandal, Nizamabad District. i! i I Appeal under Section 54 of L.A.Act of 1894 against the, ludgment and Decree dated 25.03.2010 in O,P.No. 7 of 2006 on the file of the C: rrt of the Senior Civil Judge, at Nizamabad. The appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l\ilemorandum of grounds filed in the Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Gc 'rernment Pleader for Appeals, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri V Manohar Rao , Advocate for respondent. This Court doth order and decree as follows 1 . That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed; 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/- N. SRIHARI IIEPUTY REGISTRAR l< SECTION OFFICER /TTRUE COPY// To, '1 The Senior Civil Judge, at Nizamabad 2. Two CD Copies DL/PSL I HIGH COURT DATED:10/09/2025 DECREE LAAS.No.128 ot 2011 DISMISSING THE APPEAL bL