The High Court · 2025

Thoom Ravind_er, S/o Venkati, Occ: Gangadhara I\4andal, Krimnagar Distridt. Thoom srinivas, s/o.Venkati, occ Agricurturist R/o. Nyarakondapaily viilage, Gangadhara [Vandal, Krimnagar Distiict. Thoom Ravinder, S/o.Gouraiah,.Occ: Agriculturist R/o.Nyatakondapally village,GangadharaMandal,Kiimnagarbistrici. -

7. Thoom Sekhar, S/o.Gouraiah, Occ. Agriculturist [Respondent Nos.2 to 7. are R/oNyalakondapally village, Gangadhara Mandal, Krimnagar Oi6trict 1 Respondent Nos.2 to 7 are proforma parties and not necessary. ...Respondents Counsel forthe Appeilants :SRl A KRUPADHAR REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI p GANGA RAMI REDDY, Standing Counsel Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 : _ _ _ The Court delivered the following: Judgment HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.145 of 2O11 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble SmL Justice Tlrumala Deui Eada) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short'the Act) is preferred by the appellants - claimants, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 28.O7.2OIO passed in L.A.O.P.No.26 of 2008 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Siricilla. (hereir-rafter 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 the lands of the claimants were acquired at Nyaiakondapalli village of Gangadhara Mandal for the purpose of new broad gauge railway line from Karimnagar to Jagtial under the limits of Gangadhara vi11age. The draft notification under Section a(1) of the Act was published on

29.09.2006. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.74,000/- per acre for dry and wet agricultural lands. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have filed a petition for reference and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Senior Civil Judge at Siricilla. 2 AKS,J & ETD,] IAAS No.145 2011

4. The case of the claimants is that the acquired lands are well developed agricultural lands, cultivated with well water, through electric motor pump set and SRSP canal water and they are red chelka soil in nature, rich in fertility and having high potentiality and utilily. That the acqurred lands are double crop dry and wet lands, commercial crops such as cotton, chilies, groundnut, green gram and vegetabies were being raised and a net annual income was around Rs.5O,OOO/- per acre from the said lands.

5. The reference Court has framed the follo\r/ing points for determination " 1 ) u,thether the compensation a u.nrded bg the respondent/ LAO utas not just and foir in relation to acquired land and trees ond if so, tohat is the just compensation? 2) To uhat reliej?"

6. Before the reference Court, the claimants got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked trxs.P1 to P3. On behalf of the respondent, RW1 was examined and Exs.Rl and R2 were marked.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has dismissed the O.P., upholding the award of the Land Acquisition Ofhcer. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present appeal is hled by the appellants. 3 AKs,J & ETD,] LAAS No.145 2011

8. Heard the submissions of Sri A.Krupadhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

9. Learned appellants counsel has submitted that the reference Court ought to have enhanced the compensation from Rs.74,O0O/- to Rs.50 Lakhs per acre, as claimed by the appellants and that the reference Court ought to have considered the evidence adduced by the appellants. He further argued that the acquired lands are situaled near S tate Highway leading from Karimnagar to Nizamabad and are within the limits of Mandal Headquarters of Gangadhara Mandal and also the main industrial, educational and commercial complexes are at Nylakondapally village and that the acquired iands are very suitable for house sites. He further submitted that the reference Court has made an error in disbelieving the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and discarding Exs.P1 to P3. He further argued that the reference Court ought to have considered the map filed under Ex.P3 which discloses the location of the acquired land and he argued that the amount granted by the Land Acquisition Officer is very meager and the reierence Court ought not to have confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. He therefore, prayed to set aside the award passed by the reference Court and prayed to enhance the compensation, to atleast Rs.2,74,00O/- per acre. 4 A(S,] & ETD,J LAAS No.145 2011

10. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No 1 has submitted, on the other hand, that the Land Acquisition Ofhcer has relied upon the sale statistics of Nylakondapally village and has taken the highest exemplar and has rightly awarded the compensation to the claimants and that the reference Court has appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and has upheld the orders of the Land Acquisition Ofhcer. He therefore, submitted that the orders of the reference Court do not need any interference and prayed to uphold the same. 1 1 . Considering the above rival submissions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

2. Whcther the order and decree of the reference Court need anY interference?

3. to rvhat relieP

12. POINT NO.1: a) The appellants herein are aggrieved by the rlismissal order of the reference Court by which the orders of the Land Acquisition Oflrcer awarding a compensation of Rs.74,000 l- p"' acre is conhrmed. b) According to the claimants their lands fetch more value and thus, are seeking enhancemenl lo an extent of Rs.2,74,000/- per /(' 5 AKS,I & ETD,] IAAS No.145 2011 acre. In support of their claim, they got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 before the reference Court. c) The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is to the effect that their lands are situated in the vicinity of commercial complexes of Gangadhara village and that their village is situated at around 1500 meters from Gangadhara. They relied upon Exs.P1 to P3' trx'Pl is the sale deed dated 28.01.2002 and Ex.P2 is the sale deed dated

09.05.2001, while the acquisition was on 29.09.2006. The said sale deeds cannot be taken into consideration as they pertain to Gar-rgadhara vi11age. d) If there are no sale deeds available pertaining to the village in which the land is acquired, then the statistics of the neighbouring village is taken into consideration. The law is well settled that the sale deeds pertaining to thc period of preceding three years to the date of acquisition are to be considered while fixing the market value, but in the present case the appellants are relying upon the sale deeds which have a time gap of more than four years and that too the sale deeds are pertaining to Gangadhara viilage, while the land acquired is in Nyalakondapalli village' e) A perusal of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, which is filed under Ex.Rl shows that the Land Acquisition Officer has called for. the sales statistics pertaining to I l 1 I I 6 AKS,I & ETD,] LAAS No.145 2011 Nyalakondapalli village and a perusal of the said sales statisticq reveals that at Sl.No.37, the document No.1599 dated 14.0g.2006 reveals the market value of dry lands is Rs.74,0OO/ _ per acre. Thus the Land Acquisition Officer has taken the sard statistics into consideration and has awarded the same amounL per acre. The saie deeds relied upon by the claiman[s refers to Gangadhara village but when there are the sales statistics available in the village in which the land is acquired, the Land Acquisition Officer rvould not consider the sales statistics pertaining to the other villages. f) The contention of the claimants, that their village is adjacent to Gangadhara village and that the sales statistics of Gangadhara village have to be considered while awarding thc compensatlon to their lands is untenable. The claimants have further relicd upon the orders of this court in L.A.A.S.No.394 of 2or4 u.herein the rand pertaining to Nachupally Village of Kodimial Mandal, Karimnagar District was acquired for formation of new broad gauge single railway line from Karimnagar to Jagtial. It is the contention of the claimants that the purpose of acquisition is the same in both the cases and that in the said case the reference Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.74,000/- to Rs.5,2g,00Ol_ per acre and their prayer is that the same may be taken into consideration in the present case to enhance the markct value. Again the same AKS,J & ETD,I LAAS No.145-2011 7 principle has to be applied, in the said case, the lands pertaining to Nachupalli village were acquired and the sales statistics concerning the said village were relied upon. In the said case' the sale deeds pertaining to the Nachupalli village were relied upon by the claimants and the said sale deeds revealed thai the land was soid in yardage basis and the sale deeds were proved and they pertain tothetransactionswithintheperiodofthreeyearspriortothe acquisition of lands i.e. the sale deeds were of 30'06'20O5 and 26.09.2005, while the date of notihcation was on 22 'O7 '2006 b.ut in the present case, the sale deeds relied upon by the claimants do not pertain to the village where the land is acquired and they do not pertain to the period falling within three years prior to the acquisition, therefore, the decision in L'A'A S No '394 of 2Ol4 cannot be applied in the present case' g) When there 1S no irreguiaritY committed by the Land following the 1n awarding comPensation bY Acquisition Officer highest sale exemplar available in the village, there is no need to interfere with the same and thus, the reference Court has dismissed the reference upholding the award of the Land Acquisition Of{icer. This Court a-lso does not hnd any irregularity committed by the reference Court and since the highest sale exemplar in Nyalakondapalli village reveals Rs 74'000/- per acre' it is opined that the claimants are not entitled to any further , I , 8 AKS,J & ETD,] LAAS No.14S 2011 .:-\. enhancement of compensation. point No.1 is answered accordingly.

13. POINT NO. 2: In view of lhe reasoned finding arrived .at point No.1, this Court hoids that the order and decree of the reference Court do not need any interference

14. POINT No.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order and decree dated 2g.O7.2010 passed in L.A.O.p.No.26 of 2OO8 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Siricilla. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SEC N OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla(With records, if anv) 2 one cc to sRtA KR:upADxAn neooV. ni*JriJforuct 3. one CC to SRt p GANGA nnrvrr iEoois;iopucf 4. Two CD Copies ADKiPSL ?k I I I i I It I 1 ': I I l I I I I , i l .ar, *:{,.*:-.q;iLtit'- , ; -i::. 'r. ,:, HIGH COURT DATED:21 l04tZO2S JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.14S of 2011 t I I I i i i I : t' DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS ) b EA- 7s q H1 E J TA Ro ( o 2 1 AUI] 2025 t. o PAT c ) * rN rHE HIGH "or*If3$rtffoBt#E oF TELANGANA MONDAY, THE TWENW FIRST DAY OF APRIL '''-.NruO TIOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HoNouRABLE sMT 'lii5irce TIRUMALA DEVI EADA LAND ACQUISI TION APPEAL SUIT NO: 145 oF 2011 Between: ^ 'Agriculturist R/o.Nyalakondapally 1 . Bodapatla Lachaiah, S/o Mallaiah' Occ:-Agriculturist' R/o Nyalakondapally ' Vil;H G";g;naia'Mindal' Karimnasar District' 2. Bodapatla Kankaiah. S/o.Mallaiah, occ: ' Viil;[:'dr;iiai']i''tvt"no'l' Karimnagar District 3. Bodapatla Komaraiah, S/o Mallaiah' Occ:^ Agriculturist Rio Nyalakondapally " Viffi;E:'6r;'s,dh"" lil'no"l' Karimnasar District 4. Bodapatla Mallesham, S/o Mallaiah' Occ:- Agriculturist R/o Nyalakondapally - Vffi;E;'d";sidiiara Manoal' Karimnasar District' 5. Vemundla Rajamallamma' W/o Lasmaiah Occ: Agriculturist R/o.Nyalakondap"llyiiiiil;' b"ng'ah"ra t'il'ndal' Karimnagar District 6. Katkam Mallaiah, S/o Lingaiah' Og9-- " Utiil;; cingaohdra Gndai' Karimnagar District' 7 Katkam Manohar Reddy' S/o .- Kista. Reddv Occ: Agriculturist Rl/o.Nvalakondaparrv rhr"a"#" c#i"an'i'-r'l"ndal' (arimnagar District 8. Medichalumula Lachaiah' S/o'Mallaiah Occ: M-ndal' Karimnagar District' 9. Medichalumula Bakkaiah' S/o'Mallaiah Occ: 10. Pochampally aakfamma' Wo'Rajaiah Occ: R/o.Nvalakondap""v'iiirfr3"'o'ngiaGii R/o.Nvalakondapalfiilfi;"'G'ngiohiil Manbal' Karimnasar District R/o. Nvalakondap''tVi'iii"c'ngudi'ii M"ndal' Karimnasar District' R/o Nyalakondapallv ^l.Sji"'lturist Agriculturist Agriculturist Agriculturist ... Petitioners/APPellants AND

1. The Land Acuision Officer [Spl Deputy Collector]' LA Unit' SC Railway' Karimnagar ...RespondenuRespondent Thoom Narsaiah, S/o.Venkati , Occ:.Agriculturist R/o Nyalakondapally village' Cr-ng"dnir. trltanOat, Krimnagar District' Thoom Mohan, S/o.Venkati, Occ:-Agriculturist R/o Nyalakondapally village' Gangadhara Mandal, Krimnagar Dlstrlcl' 2 3 cangaohariti4a"rol[inrnrgrrDistrict. /o.Nyalakondapallyviilage. 4 Ilgo, Ravinder, S/o Venkati, Occ: Agriculturist R, 5. Thoom Srinivas, S/o.Venkati, Occ: Agriculturist R_/c 6. Thoom Ravinder, S/o.Gr Gangadharartl-ari'r"t,'x.mnrgarDistrict.'Nyalakondapallyvillage, vittage, cin! Jo-h;;"N*H:,11i1,ff:r#tJ',:#Hrist R/o Nvarakondapaly

7. Thoom Sekhar, S/o.Gouraiah, Occ: Agriculturist [Respondent Nos.2 to 7 Gangadhara rr,rr"Jir, rl#:#,i#J,?,,S,1i.dapaily viilase, Respondent Nos.2 to 7 are proforma parties and not necessary. Appeal under section s-i o-rf n Act lB94 against the order and decree dated in L A-o p N".26 ;i id&';;l#'fi" , the court or the senior civir ,',3.'#'3,i3 il'de ... Respondents This appeal comino tn", L,og,Lnilni ;;;:: :i,i"j [#t"ilxTtr perusing the grounds of appear, and upon hearins *re arq;ments or sRr A riRu;;d,,1.^[ilEt1i:Xn,[H"??;: Appe,ants and of sni p_ GANGA nnrri Standing counset to,. ine Respondent No..1 and none appeared for the respondent No.2 to 7. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: .nl6"o?.

1. That the LAAS be ar dated 28 oz 2o, r,llf ':"'l Civil Judge at Siricilla; ; : "ffi : :?^rH:'rh:,tj,::: ::j:; 2_ That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. ,=87#RE&SJ[l'[ SECTI N OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1.The Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla 2. lwo CD Copies Y{- HIGH COURT DATED:21 10412025 DECREE LAAS.No.145 ot 2011 DISMISSING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS Is- q ( q )l