The High Court · 2025

110. S. Vajramma, Wo Ch. Mallaiah 111. S.Srinivas, S/o Ch. Mallaiah 112. S. Yadagiri, S/o Ch. Mallaiah 1 13. I Bhoopal, S/o Ch. Mallaiah 114. S. Lalitha, D/o Ch. Mallaiah 115. S. Padma, D/o Ch. Mallaiah AII are majors, R/o Mittapally (V), Siddipet (M), Medak District. L.Rs of deceased R.64 (LAASMP -903 of 201 1)

116. Sri Jitta Babu, S/o J. Laxmawa 117. Bonagiri lndira, D/o J. Laxmawa Above both are majors, R/o Mittapally (v)' Siddipet (M) Medak District. L.Rs of deceased R.16 (LAASMP-919 of 2Ol 1)

118. B. Rajawa, Wo B. UPPalaiah 119. B. Kanakaiah, S/o UPPalaiah 12O. B Mallawa, D/o UPPalaiah All are majors, R/o Mittapally (v), Siddipet (M)' Medak District. L.Rs of deceased R.66 (LAASMP-922 of 2011)

121. Ch. Rukhamma, Wo Ch. Sathaiah 122. Ch Laxmi, S/o Ch. Sathaiah 123. Ch Laxmi, D/o Ch. Sathaiah 124. Ch. Jamuna, D/o Ch. Sathaiah 125. Ch. Padma, D/o Ch. Sathaiah 126. Ch. Madhavi, D/o Ch. Sathaiah All are majors, R/o Mittapally (v), Siddipet (M)' Medak District. L.Rs of deceased R.76 (LAASMP-925 ot 2011)

127. R. Rajawa, Wo R. Mallaiah 128. R. Nagaiah, S/o R. Mallaiah 129. R. Lingam Goud, S/o R. Mallaiah 130. R. Fajesham, S/o R. Mallaiah 131. R. Laxmi, S/o R. Mallaiah

132. Il. Bhagyawa, D/o. R. Mallaiah All are majors, R/o Mittapaily (v), Siddipett (M), Medak District. L.Rs of deceased R.83 (LAASMP-92S ot 20111 133. Gihousiya Begum, Wo Maqbool Ahmed, 134. Ctudisa Begum, D/o Maqbool Ahmed, 135. Asia Maqbool, D/o Maqbool Ahmed, 136. Mohd JahangirAhmad, S/o Maqbool Ahmed, 137. Mohd lftakhar Ahmad, S/o Maqbool Ahmed, 138. Wajiha Masroor, D/o Maqbool Ahmed, All are majors, Fl/o Miftapaily (v), Siddipet (M), Medak District. L.Rs of deceased R.2 (LAASMp-931 of 201 1) 139. Darram Venkata laxmi, W/o D. Ram reddy, 140. Daram NageshwarReddy, S/o D. Ram Reddy, 141. Daram Shravanthi, D/o D. Ram Reddy, All are majors, R/o Mittapafiy (v), Siddipet (M), Medak District L.Rs of deceased R.39 (LAASMP-934 ot 2011)

142. Ch Sidawa, Wo Ch. Bramaiah 143. Ch Narsimha Chary, S/o. Ch. Bramaiah All are maiors, Rl/o Mittapaily (v), Siddipet (M), Medak District. L.Rs of der:eased R.81 (LAASMP_937 ot 20111

144. Ande Sayyawa, D/o A. Rajaiah, 145. Chenna Kavitha, D/o A. Rajaiah All are majors, R/o Miftapaily (v), Siddipet (M), Medak District. L.Rs of deceased R.6S (LAASMP_94O ot 2011)

146. Mamindla llawa, Wo M. Ojaiah 147. Mamindla pochaiah, S/o M. Ojaiah 148. Mamindta yeilaiah, S/o M. Ojaiah 14S. K. Bl-'oomwa, D/o M. Ojaiah All are majorc, R/o Mittapaily (v), Siddipet (M), Medak Districr. L.Rs of deceased R.46 (LAASMP-943 of 201 1)

150. S. Rama, Wo S. Yella Reddy 151. S. Raju, S/o S. Yella Reddy 152. S. Thara, D/o S. Yella Reddy 153. S. Vishwalaxmi, S/o S. Yella Reddy All are majors, Rangadampally, H/o. Mittapally, Medak District. L.Rs of deceased R.102 (LAASMP-973 of 2011)

154. Smt. S. Bhoodava, Wo S. Venkati, Age:58 years, 155. S. Balaiah, S/o Venkati, Age:39 years, 156. S. Narsaiah, S/o Venkati, Age:32 years, 157. S. Srinivas, S/o Venkati, Age:29 years, 158. S. Manga Rani, D/o S. Venkati, Age:26 years, Above all re R/o Mittapally (v) Siddipet (M), Medak Distrid. L.Rs of deceased R.73 ([AASMP-2384ot20111 Respondents 110 to 158 are brought on reoord as LRs of deoeased RR- 64,16,66,76,83,2,39,81,65,,16,1O2 and 73 as per court order dated 22-12-11 made in LAASMPs No. 903,91 9,922,925,928,931,934,937,940,943,1 02 and 73 respectively.

159. Laxmi Narasimha chary, S/o. ltikala Balanarasimha Chary, 160. ltikala Srinivas, Wo Balanarsimha Chary, Both are R/o H. No.9-1 -333127, Langarhouse, Hyderabad. L.Rs of deceased R.54 (LAASMP 27 ot 2O161 161. ltikala Venkaiah, S/o ltikala Chakrapani 162. ltikala Sakkubai, Wo ltikala Chakrapani Both are H.No.74, Gajvrrel Village and Mandal, Medak District. L.Rs of deceased R.56 (LAASMP-S2 of 2016)

163. Chennoju Ratnawa, Wo Cheenolu Nagabhushanam, Age:55 yeas, Rl/o H.No.4-07, Mittapalli (v) & (m) Medak District. L.R of deceased R.72 (LAASMP-S8 of 2016)

164. Chennoiu Venkata Chary, S/o C. Chandraiah, R/o H.No.3-36 165. Chenoiu Sathyanarayana, S/o C. Chandraiah, Ri/o H.No.3-38 Both ar€, Miftapalli V & M, Medak District. L.Rs of <leceased R.75 (LAASMP 30 of 2016) 166. Raziya Sultana, Age:S8 years, Ryo Sandi 167. Jerkiya Sultana, Age:55 years, Karimnagar. '168. Rukiya Sulthana, Age:42 years, Hyderabad. 169. Gousia Sultana, Age:46 years, Hyderabad. 170. Ktramar Sultana, Age:35. Respondents 166 to 170 are D/o. Ali Hussain, R/o. H.No.10_1_2O15, Charwad'arStreet,NearGids,HighSchool'Siddipet,MedakDistrict L.Rs of dr:ceased R.1OO (LAASMP-49 of 2016) $9s_q91!e1ts No.159 to 170 are brought on record as LRs of deceased RR_ 54'56,72,75 and 100 as per the Hon.ble court order dated 10-3-16 made in LAASMPS.No. 27,52,58,30 and 49t16 respectively. NO: I OF Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit liled in support of the petition, tne xigh court may be pleased grallstav of all further proceedings pursuant to the decree and Juigment made in o.P.No.703 of 2003 dated 8.3.2007 on the file of the principal oiitrict Judge, Medak at Sangareddy Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR APPEALS Counsel for the R,espondent No.l, 85 to 87, 89: M/s. MOHAN VTNOD & ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondents No.3,6 to 15: M/s. A. Narasimha Reddy Counsel for the llespondent No.4: Sri p. Laxma Reddy Counsel for the Respondents No.i 10 to 1 17,131,132,1M;145,141,148,149,i61,1 62: Sri G. Anandam Counsel for the Respondents No.96 & 97: M/s. C.R. pratap Reddy The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE VAKITT RAMAKRISHNA REDDY LAND ACOUIS ON APP EAL SUTT No. 1039 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Honourable Sri Justice Vakiti Ramal<rtshna Reddy) This Appeat filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against the Order and Decree dated 08.03.2007 passed in O.P. No. 703 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Medak (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court").

2. By the impugned order, the Reflerence Court enhanced the compensation originally awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, "LAO") in respect of the acquired lands. The LAO had fixed the market value at Rs.45,000/- per acre for Category-A, Rs.30,0001- pet acre for Category-B and Rs.20,0001- per acre for Category-C lands' The Reference Court enhanced the said values to Rs'1,93,600/, Rs.1,45,200 and Rs.96,800/- per acre respectively. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is preferred by the LAO, Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet. 2 KI.J&VRKR,J LAAS-1039_2007 I. BRIEF FACTS 3- The subject acquisition pertains to a totar extent of Ac. 5g-36 guntas of agricultural land situated in Survey Nos. 390 and 4lg of Narsapur Village and Survey Nos. 415 and 442 of Mittapally Village, within Narsapur Mandal, Siddipet (erstwhile Medak) District. The lands were acquired for a public purpose, namely, excavation of a feeder chamel as part of an irrigation development programme. II. NOTI FICATION AWARI) 4. A pn:liminary notification under Section 4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 09.07.1999. pursuant to the said notificarion, the LAO issued notices under Sections 9(3) and I0 of the Act, inviting objections and claims from the interested persons. Thereafter, an award enquiry was conducted by the LAo in accordance with law. 5 After c,cmpletion of the enquiry, the LAO passed an award dated 2 I .05.2001, wherein the acquired lands were categorised into category-A, category-B, and category{. The basis for such categorisation., as recorded by the LAO, was the nature and quality of the [and, inclu,ling: 3 KL,J&VRKR,J I.AAS 1039_m07 (D (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) irrigation facilities available; soil fertility and proximity to water sources; distance from the main road and village habitation; and overall potential for cultivation and yield.

6. Lands having assured irrigation and high fertility were placed in Category-A; lands with partial irrigation or moderate fertility were placed in Category-B; and lands that were dry, inferior, or lacking irrigation facilities were placed in Category{.

7. Based on this classification, the LAO fixed the market value as follows: : Rs. 45,0004 per acre; : Rs. 30,000/- per acre; and : Rs. 20,000/- per acre.

8. Not being satisfied with the compensation so awarded and contending that the categorisation as well as the valuation did not reflect the true market value of the lands, the claimants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act, and the matter came to be registered as O.P. No. 703 of 2003 before the Reference Court. 4 KI4J&VRKR,J I^AAS_1 039_2007 III. POINT BEFORE THE REFERENCE COURT

9. Upon the basis of the pleadings and rival assertions, the Reference (lourt framed the following point for determination: "Whether the market value fixed for the acquired lands can be enhanced arrd, if so, to what quantum?"

10. The (lourt noted that the entire adjudication revolved around the adequacy of compensation awarded by the LAO under Section I I of the Act anrl the claimants' assertion that the compensation did not reflect the true and fair market value of the lands on the date of the Section 4( I ) notification. IV. EV EN E I I. [n order to substantiate their claim for enhancement of compensatic,n, the claimants examined pWs I to 7. Through them, the claimants rrrarked Exs.Al to A2l, which inctude, Exs.Al to A3 - Tonch Maps showing the detailed location, boundaries, and classification ol' the lands, Exs.A4 and ,A.5 - certified copies of Revenue Maps, Exs.A7 to Al6 - certified copies of various sale deeds reflecting th<: prevailing market value in the vicinity, Exs.A l7 to A,2l _ certified coJries of orders relating to ^Do:nparable acquisitions and 5 KL,J&VRKR,J IAAS tO39_2007 compensation awarded therein. These documents were relied upon to demonstrate (a) the potentiality of the lands, (b) the value of neighbouring lands, and (c) the inadequacy of the market value fixed by the LAO.

12. On behalf of the respondent-State, RWI was examined. The State produced Exs.Bl to 84, which primarily consisted of the award file, classification statements, and documents relied upon by the LAO for determining the market value. V. FIND Of,'TIIE COURT

13. The Reference Court, after careful appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, recorded detailed findings. It frrst noted that the claimants had produced Exs.Al to .A3 (Tonch Maps) and Exs.A4 and A5 (Revenue Maps), clearly indicating the exact location, nature, and contour ofthe acquired lands. These maps established that the lands were situated in proximity to irrigated tracts and possessed considerable agricultural potential. The Court further observed that Ex.A6 clearly depicted the alignment and location of the Feeder Channel, for which purpose the lands were speciflrcally acquired. This, according to the Court, -highlighted the importance and strategic 6 KI4JAVRKR,J LAAS_1039_2007 location of the lands and supported the claimants' contention regarding the value and potentiality of the property. In addition, the Reference court exan'rined Exs.A7 to 416, consisting of contemporaneous sale deeds relating to nearby lands. The Court found that the sale consideration reflected in these sale deeds was significantly higher than what the Lr\o had fixed. The court held that these transactions, being proximate in time to the Section 4(l) notification and pertaining to lands situated in the vicinity, constituted reliable indicators of prevailing nrarket value. The Reference court further observed that the sale transacrions contained in Exs.A7 to 416 constituted reliable and comparable instances for determining the market value of the acquired lands. The Court noted that the lands covered by these sale deeds were situated in close proximity to the subject lands and, therefore, satisflred the well-setrled rests ofl comparability laid down by the Supreme court-namr:ly proximity of time, proximity of situation, simirarity of potentiality, and absence of extraneous factors affecting value. The court also to,rk i,to account the spccific admission made by RWl, the Govemment ',vitness, that the acquired lands were located near Siddipet town and were in close vicinity to the villages of Mittapally, Narsapur, and Randampally, alt of which were areas showing increasing 7 KL,J&VRKR,J IAAS_1 039_2007 developmental activity. The Court further observed that the lands possessed good potential for conversion into house sites, in view of their advantageous location and the infrastructural developments taking place in the surrounding region.

14. In view of the above material, the Reference Court held that it was both just and necessary to assess the market value of the lands on a square yard basis, rather than on a per-acre basis, since the surrounding circumstances indicated that the lands had already acquired non- agricultural potentiality, particularly for residential plotting. The Reference Court also adverted to the fact that the LAO had earlier classified the lands into three categories 'A', 'B', and 'C' and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 45,000/-, Rs. 30,000/-' and Rs. 20'000/- per acre, respectively. Having considered that the Feeder Channel extended to a length of 8.7 kilometers and that the acquired lands were situated at different points along this alignment, the Court found that the categorisation made by the LAO was reasonable, consistent with the ground realities, and appropriate for determining compensation.

15. Consequently, the Reference Court allowed the reference and hetd that the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation at the .>.a 8 KL,J&VRIR.J LAAS-I039_2007 rate of Rs. 40/- per square yard for Category-A lands, Rs. 30/- per square yard for Category-B lands, and Rs. 20t- per square yard for Category-C lands. In addition, the Court held that the claimants were entitled to Rs. 1,98,000/- towards the market value of the poultry farm existing on the acquired land. The Court also directed payment of all statutory b,enefits under the Land Acquisition Act, including 30% solatium, interest at 9Yo per annum for the first year from the date of possession (1.e., 28.07. 1998 to 27.07.1999), and interest at l5o/o per annum thereafter till realization, together with interest on solatium and interest on r.he additional market value, as mandated under the Act.

16. Aggrieved by rhe order dated 08.03.2007 passed by the Reference Oourt, the Referring Officer preferred the present Appeal. VI. SUBMISSION SOFTH E PARTIES: A) C,otttentions of the nt/ (State/LAo):

17. The leanred Government pleader for Appeals, appearing on behalf of tlre al)pella.ts contended that the Reference court erred in enhancing t:re market value of the acquired lands to Rs.40/-, Rs.30/_, and Rs.20l- per square yard, in departure from the valuation fixed by the LAo' without there being any rational or reliable evidence. It was 9 KL,J&VRKR,J LAAS_I039_2047 argued that the enhancement was made arbitrarily by almost exclusively relying upon Exs. A7 to 416, which are the sale deeds relating to lands in the same general vicinity, though the acquired lands extend over a stretch of nearly 8.7 kilometres, displaying significant intemal variation in potentiality and location.

18. It is further submitted that the lands covered under those sale deeds were not strictly comparable in respect of location, potentiality, or developmental advantages, and therefore the Reference Court's reliance on them was misplaced. It was fuither contended that the Reference Court erred in granting separate compensation for the poultry farms existing on the acquired lands, despite the fact that the LAO had already taken into consideration the value of such structures while determining the award.

19. The learned Government Pleader asserted that the enhancement made by the Reference Court was not supported by proper and comparable sale instances and that the market value determined lacked any reasonable basis. [t was further urged that the Reference Court failed to consider Exs. A3 to A7, which pertain to sale deeds of lands situated in the comparable or same - locations and were more *: 10 KL, J &VRKR, J LAAS_I039_2007 appropriate for assessment. It was further argued that the Reference court wrongly assumed that the fertirity and potentiality of the acquired lands were identical to those covered under the sale deeds relied upon by the claimants, overlooking material distinctions between them.

20. on the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the leamed Government Pleader for the appeilants has prayed that, there being merit in the appeal, the same may be allowed. B) Conllgntions of the Resoondents/Claimants

21. In rer;ponse, the leamed counsel for the Respondents/claimants contended that the award passed by the LAo was wholly inconsistent with the pre:vailing market value. [r was emphasized that the acquired lands enjoy significant locational advantage being abutting the Rajiv Rahadari-H',rderabad to Ramagundam road and also adjacent to the Highway :}om Siddipet ro Husnabad, thereby commanding substantially higher value than that awardcd by the LAo. 22- The respondents further contend that the acquired lands are suitable for house sites and many industries, rice mills, oil mills, tile factories, poultV fortns, hotels, educational institutions and other firms 11 KT4J&VRKR'J |AAS-1039_2007 were established in and around the acquired lands. It is was further contented that having regard to such advantageous location the claimants had rightly claimed the market value at Rs.500/- per square yard for the acquired lands situated adjoining the Rajiv Rahadari, Rs.120/- per square-yard for the acquired land categorized as 'A', Rs.l00/- per square yard for the acquired lands categorized as'B'and Rs.50/- per square yard, for the acquired lands categorized as 'C'.

23. The respondents also claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- towards market value of the poultry shed and structures situated on the acquired land along with all statutory benefits under amended provisions of the Act.

24. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Counsel for Respondents has submitted that the award passed by the Reference Court is just and proper and as such there being no merit in the present appeal, deserves to be dismissed. VII. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:

25. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and having carefully examined the material placed on record, the tbllowing points arise for determination in this Appeal: L2 KL,J&VRKR,J LAAS-1039_2007 (, Wether the Reference Court was justified in enhancing the market value of the acquired lands? (tt llhether the enhancement granted is in accordance wtth lav,t and evidence on record? (iii) Wether any interference with the findings of the Refet'ence Court is waruanted? vIII. TIVE STATEMENT OF COMPENSATION:

26. For a clearer appreciation of the controversy, the comparative chart ofcornpensation, as awarded by the LAO and as enhanced by the Reference Oourt, is tabulated as under: Category Extent Acs-Gts. Compensation Awarded by LAO (Rs. per acre) Compensation Enhanced by Reference Court (Rs. per acre) Difference (Enhanced Award) (Rs. per acre) A B C 02-03 45,000t- 27-35 30,000/- 2s-13. 20,000/- (Rs.40/- per square yard) r,93,600i- (Rs.30/- per square yard) 1,45,200/- (Rs-20/- per square yard) 96,800/- I 48 600t , 1,15,2001- 76,0001- L3 KL, J&VRKR,J LAAS_I039_2007

27. From the above tabulation, and upon a careful reappraisat of the evidence, it is manifest that the LAo had adopted a distinctly conservative approach in fixing the market value, whereas the Reference Court, on the other hand, took into account: i. ii. iii. the location and potentiality of the lands; the sale exemplars of the proximate period; and the comparability of lands situated in the vicinity of the acquired lands.

28. The crucial question, theref,ore, is whether the reliance placed by the Reference Court on Exs. A7 to 4.16 and its ultimate fixation of market value basing upon the above can be said to be justified in law, IX. ANALYSIS AND FINDTNGS: 29. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanoed by the learned Government Pleader lor appeals appearing for the Appellant and learned counsel for the Respondents/claimants and also perused the entire record of the case, including the pleadings, oral evidence of PWs I to 7 and RW [, and the documentary evidence under Exs.Al to ,A.2l as well as Exs.Bl ro 84. L4 KL,J&VRKR,J LAAS_I039_2007

30. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the lands, admeasuring Ac.58-36 rguntas belonging to the respondents were acquired for the public purpose of excavation of a feeder channel pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 0g.o7.lggg. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals, appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the Reference Court erred in enhancing the market val,ue of the acquired lands to Rs.40/-, Rs.30/- and Rs.20 l- per square yarcl without there being any rational or reliable evidence.

31. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer to Section 23 of the Act, which categorically enumerates the parameters to be considered while determining compensation, and reads as under: "2.1. Matters to be considered in determining compensatton (l) In determtning the amount of compensation ro be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shc,ll talre into consideration first, the marlcet value of the land at the date of the publicatton of the [notification under section 4. sub- section (I)J [Substituted by Act 38 of t923, Section 7. ,for " declaration relating thereto uncler section 6,,.J; secondly, the damage sustained by the person inte'rested, by reason of the taking of any .standing crops or trees which malt b;_on the land at the time of the Collectors taking possessioi thereof: 15 KL,J&VRKR,J LAAS_I039_2007 thirdly, the damage ({ any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collectors taking possession ofthe land, by reason ofsevering such land from hts other land: fourthly, the damage (f any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; fifthly, if in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (f ony) incidental to such change; sixthly, the damage (,f any) bona fide resulting from dimtnution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land' t!-A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every cose award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum Wr annum on such market value for the period commencing on and Jrom the tlate of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (l), in respect of such lancl to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Explanation. In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings -for the ac:quisition o-/'the lund were held up on account oJ'any sta! o.!_injunction by the order of 16 KL,J&yRKR,J LAAS_1 039_2007 an)' Court shall be exclufud.J [Inserted by Act 6g of l 9l)4, Section l 5 (w.e.f, 24.9. 1 984).J (2) In addition to the marlcet value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of [thi:rty per centumJ [Substituted by Act 6g of 19g4, Section 15, for ,, liJteen per centum,, (w.e.f. 24.'.). 1984).J on such market value, in consideration of contpulsory nature of the acquisition. "

32. The leamed Govemment pleader for Appeals specifically contended that small sale transactions and small pieces of land cannot offer the sarne market value and will never fetch price to that of a large tract of land. It is further contended that in a catena of judgments, rhe Honourable Supreme Court had rejected such instances of small sale transactions as being not comparable sales. To suppon his contentions, the leamed (iovemment pleader for Appears has placed reliance upon Gurulingappo and otherc u Assistnat commissioner and Land Acquisition Ol/icer Cutbaryt and Agriculturol produce Market Committee v. LAO & Assistant Commissionef, The Honourable Supreme Court in Agricultural produce Market Commillec,s case (supra) has c,bserved as under: "[t is now a well-settled legal position that in compulsory acquisition, the Court would sit in the armchair of a willing ' AtR lqgT sc tz.;o '] l resey to scc 6ze 17 KL, J &VRKR, J I.AAS_1039_2007 purchaser and would ask whether as a reasonable prudent rrendee, he would otfer in the open market the rate of market value proposed by him in respect of the land under acquisition. The Court requires to consider the relative values of the lands in the or similar thc soil corulition and neishhour-hood. advantaqeous features on comparable prices."

33. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has contendd that while determining the market value in land acquisition matters, the Land Acquisition Officer is required to keep in mind various factors as enumerated under Section 23 of the Act. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants further contended that it is now well settled that smaller extents of tand could be relied upon for determining the market value of large acquired tracts.

34. The Honourable Supreme Court in Kapil Mehra v. Union of India3 exhaustively laid down the guiding principles for determination of the market value in land acquisition matters. The court emphasized that, while assessing the reasonable market value which the acquired land is capable of fetching, the Land Acquisition Off,rcer must take into account Several relevant factors. The Court observed as under:

10. Market Value: First questi<tn that emerges is w'hat would be the reasonable marlcet value which t-he acquired lands are capable of 3 (zors) zscc262 18 KL,J&VRKR,J r^A,AS_1039_2007 fetching. while Jixing the market value of the acquired rand, the Land Acquisition officer is required to lceep in mind the foilowing factors: (i) existing geographical situatton of the land; (ii) existing use of the land; (iii) already available advantages, ltke proximity to National or state Highway or road and/or developed area and (tv) market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/area or adjacent or very near to the acqutred land. I l. ffu standard method of determtnation of the market value of q4y acg'uired land is bv the valuer evaluating the land on the date of valuotion publication of notification Under Section 4fit of the Act acting as a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase the rand in open market at the prevailing price on that day, from a seller willing ro sell such land at a reasonable prtce. Thus, the market value is delermined with reference to tlte open marlet sale of comparuble land in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of preliminary notification, as that would give afatr indication of the market value.

35. [n conr.inuation of This -settled-le[al framework, the leamed counsel for the claimants placed reliance on the decision in Madhukar v. vidarbha lrrigation Development Corporation and othersa, wherein the Flonourable Apex Court reiterated that the market value must be determined keeping in view of various factors inctuding proximity to <leveloped or developing areas, which can significantly influence its potential value. i o 1zozz1 13 Supreme court cases 344 19 KL,J&VRI(R,J tAAS_1039_2007

36. The learned counsel for the claimants also drew support from the decision in Satish and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and otherss, wherein the Honourable Apex Court held that when multiple comparable sale exemplars are placed on record and are otherwise admissible and reliable, the exemplar reflecting the highest market value amongst them may be adopted for the purpose of valuation.

37. Furthermore, in an earlier decision in Shaii Kuriakose and others v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others6, the Honourable Supreme Court affirmed that the comparable sales method of valuation is generally to be preferred over other methods of valuation for determination of the of the market value. [n a detailed exposition on this aspect, the Court observed as under: "3. It is no doubt true that courts atlopt Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land While fixing the market value of the acquired lond, Comparable Sales Method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as Capitulisution of Net Income Method or Expert Optnton Method. Comparuble Seiles Method of valuatton is n"eferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination qf the market value of the acquired larul at which a willing purchaser would oav for the acquired land if il has been t (zoog) t4 Supreme Court Cases 758 u(zoor) 7 scc 6so ,?-' 20 KL,J&VRKR,J LAAS_I 039_2007 sold in n markel dt the ti of issue of Comparable Sales Method of vahation of land for fixing the marlcet value of the acquired land is nol always conclusive. There are certain.factors which are the A iretl to fullilled and on ment of those rsfrrt&/j4heLSkt The factors laid down inter alia are: (l) the sale must be a genuine transaction, that Q) the sale deed must hav,z been executed at lhe time proximate of the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, that (3) the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, that (4) the iand covercd by the sales must be similar to the acquired land and that (5) the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be com.oarable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satislied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by thc sales be not given for the acquired land. However, d there is a disstmilarity is regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land betuecn land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than that is re/lecled in the sales depending upon the disadvantugcs altoched with the acquired land. "

38. The contention of the learned Govemment pleader that the Reference Court rvrongly relied upon Exs.A7 to Al6 since the acquired lands stretch over about 8.7 kilometres, is untenable. A mere linear spread does not dilure comparability when the acquired lands form a continuous b,elt rvith similar locational features and potential. In such circumstances, sale deeds from the same general vicinity remain valid 2L KL, J &VRKR, J LAAS_1039_2007 indicators of market value. Further, as admitted by RWl, the Govemment had taken possession of the acquired lands on28.07.1998, while the notification under Section a(l) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 09.07.1999, and the award was passed on 21.05.2001. Therefore, sale transactions executed within three years prior to the date of taking possession (i.e., 28.07.1998) could legitimately be considered for determining the prevailing market value.

39. In this context, the claimants relied upon Exs. A7 to 4'16, which comprise a series of registered sale deeds in the same locality. PWI deposed that several transactions took place in the same locality of Mittapally Village at rates ranging between Rs.15/- and Rs.200/- per square yard. Notably, Exs. A-11 and A-I2 are three years preceding the date of possession, wherein lands in the vicinity were sold at Rs. l5/- per square yard. Subsequent transactions under Exs. Al4 and A15 reflected higher rates of Rs.75l- per square yard, showing a consistent increase in market value of the lands in the locality. These sale statistics demonstrate that the market value of lands situated near the acquired area ranged between Rs.lll- and Rs.75l- per square yard,, depending on proximity and potentiality. \1 v 22 KL, J &VRKR, J LAAS_I039_2007

40. It is further evident from Ex. Al7 that the Govemment had earlier acquired Ac.7.10 guntas of land in S.No.tl54 of Lingareddypally hamlet, Siddipet, where the LAO initially fixed the market value at Rs.22,000/- per acre. Upon reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, enhanced the same to Rs.38/- per square yard,, which was also later confirmed by this Court in ap;real. The said land, located merely two furlongs from the present acqrrired lands, provides a sound and comparable basis for valuation. hr view of these materials, the Reference Court was fully justified in adopting the rate under Ex. Al7 and determining the market value of the acquired lands on a square-yard basis.

41. The Flonourable Supreme Court in Lond Acquisition Officer v. Karigowdal ha, categorically held that sale deeds pertaining to lands situated in the same or nearby villages, sharing similar physical characteristi,:s, fertility, and development potential, provide the most reliable basis for comparison in determining market value and observed as follows: "75. It is a settled principle o-f law that lands of adjacent villages can be made the basis for determintng the fair market value of the acquired land. This principle of law is quatified by '1zoto; 5 scc 708 23 KL,J&VRKR,J raAs_l039_2007 clear dictum of this Court itself that whenever direct evidence i.e. instances of the same villages are available, then it is most desirable that the court should consider that evidence. But where such evidence is not available court can safely rely upon the sales statistics of adjoining lands provided the instances are comparable and the potentiality and location of the land is somewhat similar. The evilence tendered in relation to the land of the adjacent villages would be a relevant piece of evidence for such determination. Once it is shown thot situation and potential of the land in two dffirent vtllages are the same then they could be awarded similar compensation or such other compensation as would be just andfair."

42. tn the present case, the sale exemplars marked as Exs.A7 to A16 relate to lands situated within the same vicinity and locality of the acquired lands. The evidence of PWs I to '1, sllpported by Exs.A7 to At6, registered sale deeds clearly establishes that the lands covered under the said sale deeds are identical in nature, fertility, location, and possess sirnilar advantages. Hence, these sale deeds constitute the most appropriate and proximate evidence for assessing the market value of the acquired lands.

43. The contention of the Appeltant that the sale deeds under Ex' A7 to Ex. At6 pertain to small extents and therefore cannot form the basis for determination of market value is untenable. The Apex Court in 24 KI4J&VRKR,J LAAS_r039_2007 Land Acq'uisition O;fficer and Sub-collector, Gadwal v. SmL sreelalha Bhoopol and anothers has observed that the small pieces of land cannor; offbr the same market value when a large tract of land is purchased in an open market by a willing and prudent purchaser. whereas in Ravinder Kumar Goer v. srate of Haryana and otherce, the Honourable Supreme court had an occasion to consider whether transactions relating to smaller extents of land could be relied upon for the market value of large acquired tracts. The Apex Court, while addressing this issue, observed as follows: " 13. Therefore, since we have already indicated that the High Court vas not justiJied in merely rclying on the circular fixing the floor rates when other evidence v,as ovtilable on the record pursuant to the re mand made, it is nece.ssar.y,for us to take note as to whether the Referenco Court had committec! an crror in not relying on the sale exemplars produced by lhe rcsputdents wilhout analysing the comparobility. The position of lat, is nell settled that when large extent oJ'lands is acquired and if the sale exemplar, also for the large extent is available on record it would be safer to rely on the same if they are comparablc lransactio,l^t. Hou,ever, as already noted above, this Court in Atma Singh (supra) has olso hetd that the sale instances of smaller cxlcnts cannot be ignoretl. Ftulher, this Court has reiterated in many cases that the sale exemplars .for smaller extent can be relied upon subjecl lo appropriate tleduction being provided towards development charges. " t aln tsgz sc zssz e 2023 SCC OnLirre sc t47 25 KL,J&VRKR,J raAs_l039_2007

44. Therefore, this Court is of the view that merely because the land covered under a sale transaction is of a smaller extent, the same does not become inadmissible or unreliable for comparative purposes, if the said transaction is genuine, proximate and relatable in situation and character.

45. The learned Government Pleader further contended that the reference court has erred in fixing the compensation on square yard basis as against the compensation awarded by the L.A.O on acreage basis cannot be sustained, as it is well-settled that the Reference Court is not bound by the method adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer and is fully empowered to re-determine the market value on the basis of the most appropriate and reliable evidence available on record. When comparable sale deeds, surrounding development, and the potentiality of the land justi$ valuation on a square-yard basis, the Reference Court is competent to depart from the acreage method and adopt a unit best reflecting the true market value. The change in the mode of calculation does not amount to any illegality so long as the ultimate determination remains just, fair, and supported by evidence The Reference Court, therefore, acted within its jurisdiction in reassessing the compensation on Jrfrrur.-yard basis. 25 KL,J&VRKR,J LAAS_I039_2007

46. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the Reference (lourt has properly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence p,laced before it and arrived at a just and reasonable determinati,ln of compensation. The fixation of the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.40/- per square yard for lands in Category-A, Rs.30l- per square yard for lands in Category-B, Rs.20l- per square'yard for lands in Category-C is supported by evidence, and are in consonance with the principles laid down under Section 23(1) of the Act. The sale transactions relied upon pertains to the same vicinity and locality and are comparable in nature

47. The next contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the Reference Court while relying upon the sale deeds under Ex. A7 to Ex. ,4.16, uhere the market value is reflected on a square yard basis, ought to have made a deduction of 1/3'd towards development charges, which is the standard norrn applied by courts in cases, where market value is de,termined on the basis of small extent sale transactions. According to the learned Government Pleader, the failure to apply such deduction renders the enhancement unsustainable. 27 KL, J &VRKR, J LAAS_I039_2007

48. In Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla v. Land Acquisition Of/icert0, the Supreme Court held that deduction towards development is justified only in cases of undeveloped or underdeveloped lands, generally to the extent of 1/3rd. However, where no development is required for implementation of the public purpose, such deduction is unwan'anted. The Court observed as under: " 19. In -/iring the marl<et value of the acquired land, whtch is undeveloped or underdeveloped, the courts have generally opproved deduction of l/3rd of the market value towards development cost exceot when no development is requtred to be made f,or tmplementation o.f the public purpose.for whtch land is acquired."

49. In the present case, the lands acquired are fertile and fully developed and that the lands were acquired specifically for the purpose of excavation of a feeder channel. As is evident from the record, the lands are to be put to public use in their existing form, without requiring conversion into plots or layouts or developnrent of roads, drainage, or other infrastructural facilities. Applying the principle laid down in the above precedent, deduction towards development charges is warranted only where the acquired land is undeveloped or underdeveloped and requires conversion into plots or layouts involving 'o lzotz; 7 scc 595 2a KL,J&VRKR,J LAAS 1039 2007 roads, drairlage, and other facilities. Since in the present case, no developmental activity is required for the intended public purpose, the Reference Court was justified in not applying 1/3d deduction and the contention ,cf the leamed Govemment Pleader cannot be accepted. Therefore, vrhere the land is directly put to public use without any such developmental activity, such deduction is wholly unwarranted.

50. It is lastly contended by the leamed Govemmenr Pleader that the Reference Court erred in granting separate compensation for the poultry farms existing on the acquired lands, despite the LAO having already takelr into account the value of such structures while passing the award. llhis contention is equally unsustainable. It is pertinent to note that the respondents/claimants themselves asserted a distinct and specific claim for the poultry farm situated on their acquired lands. In view of such a separate and independent claim, the Reference Court was justified in independently assessing the value of the poultry farm based on the evidence adduced and in fixing the compensation at Rs.I,98,000/-

51. Under Section 23(l) of the Land Acquisition Act, the rnarket value of the ar:quired land is to be determined by including not only rhe 29 KL, J &WI(R, J LAAS_I039_2007 value of the land but also all improvements or structures situated thereon. Ordinarily, where the value of a poultry farm has already been included as part of the overall market value, awarding a separate amount may not arise. However, in the present case, the valuation adopted for the land by the Reference Court expressly excluded the specific cost of the poultry farm. Consequently, the Reference Court, after considering the rival submissions and the evidence on record, rightly assessed the estimated value of the poultry farm at Rs.1,98,000/-. The grant of separate compensation is, therefore, we[l- supported by evidence and squarely in consonance with the statutory mandate under Section 23(l) of the Act.

52. Further, the compensation granted separately for the poultry farm and the land cannot, by itself, be a ground to interfere with the well- reasoned order of the Reflerence Court. The Reference Court has rightly recognized that the poultry farm constituted an independent improvement existing on the acquired land, and that its separate valuation represents a fair and accurate computation of the total compensation payable, rather than any duplication of benefits. 30 KL,J&VRKR,J 2007 LAAS 'O39

53. Though it is settled law that the value of the poultry farm should ideally be an integrated component of the overall land valuation, a procedural separation in the award does not, by itself, vitiate the entire decision, provided that the total compensation determined is fair, reasonable rrnd based on evidence. It is to be noted that only when the income capitalization method is adopted for assessing market value of acquired lands, no separate compensation for poultry farm can be granted, since that method computes a composite value of the income generating asset as a whole. However, where the valuation is not strictly based on income capitalization method, awarding separate compensation, lbr poultry farm may be permissible, particularly when the poultry farm constitutes distinct and valuable improvements that directly contribute to the productivity of the land. Moreover, the intent behind not awarding separately for the poultry farrn and the land is rnerely to avoid double valuation. The rationale is that the income capitalization method determines a composite market value of the entire income-generating asset based on its potential retums. Awarding :;eparate compensation for individual components that contribute tr that income stream would amount to double valuation, which is impermissible. ln tfr"iilnt case, since the marker value of 31 KL, J &VRKR, J [-AAS_1039_2007 the acquired lands was fixed based on the comparable sale exemplars under Exs.A7 to 416, there is no instance of following capitalization method. Thus, the approach of the Reference Court in assessing the market value of the acquired lands and the poultry farm in the said acquired lands separately cannot be termed as elroneous or contrary to 1aw.

54. Hence, awarding compensation in respect of the acquired lands and the poulty farm therein separately or together is of no material consequence, as long as the total amount represents the fair market value of the acquired land. Accordingly, the above contention advanced by the leamed Government Pleader for Appeals is devoid of merit and stands rejected.

55. An appellate court wilt ordinarily interfere with an award of the Reference Court only on well-defined legal grounds, such as a manifest error in determining the market value or a violation of a fundamental legal principle, and not a mere technicality in presentation. Merely because the Reference Court awarded compensation separately in respect of acquired lands and the poultry farm existing therein cannot, by itsetf furnish a groun& to set aside the award passed by the 32 KL, J &VRKR, J IA.AS_1039-2007 Reference Court. Therefore, 8S long as the total enhanced compensation is justifiable based on market varue and evidence, the method ol breaking it down into separate heads for land and poultry farm, cerrLot be faulted and is not a valid basis for interference. x.

56. [n the light of the foregoing discussion, this courr finds no illegality, perversity, or procedural irregularity in the findings of the Reference court warranting interference in the Appeal. The order of the Reference Court is based on a proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and represents a fair and reasonable determination of the market value and the value of improvements. Accordingly, rhe appeal is liable to be dismissed.

57. As regards to the statutory benefits, appellants/claimants are entitled to solatium at 30Yo and additional market value at l2yo per annum frorn the date of notification till the date of award, together with interest at 9Yo per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and l5o/o per annum thereaftei till the date of realization, in accordance with Sections z3(r-A),23(z), and 2g of the Act. r@, Xt. RESULT: 33 KL,J&VRKR,J IAAS_1039_2007

58. For the reasons recorded above, the Appeal Suit stands dismissed, confirming the order and decree dated 08.03.2007 passed in O.P. No. 703 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Medak. The Claimants sha[[ be entitled to a[[ stahrtory benefits under the Act, including but not limited to solatium, additional value and interest etc., as indicted hereinbefore. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. As a requel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this Appeal shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR ,/e SECTION OFFICER To, Hyderabad. IOUTI

1. The PrincipalDistrict Judge Medak at Sangareddy' (with record-s, if any) 2. Trruo CCs to Gp FOR APPEALS, High cturt for the state of Telangana at 3. One CC to [/Us- tvttnan Vinod & Assocjates, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Laxma Reddy, Advocate [OPUCI 5. One CC to Sri G. Anandam, Advocate IOPUCI- 6.OneCCtoSriC.R-PratapReddy'Mvocate[OPUCI 7. One CC to Sri A. Narasirnha Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] 8. Tvvo CD Coglies \qr HIGH COTJRT DATED i1511212A25 ,) ttt 5 o e ) o (J 0 5 l{1[n 2[26 C} ^Ir .L-J.-1 * JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.1039 of 2007 DISMISSING THE LAAS \ ."*- b{' [ 34e4 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY LAND ACOU FIRST APPEAL No: 1 039 of 2OO7 n The Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet ...APPELLANT/REFERRING OFFICER D

1. N.Pochaiah, S/o.Venkaiah 2. Maqbool Ahmed, S/o Jahangir Ahmed, (died) per Lrs RR- 133-1 38 3. Narsimha Reddy, S/o.Ashireddy, 4. P.Shailaja, Wo.Ramgopal Rao 5. Maqbool Ahmed, S/o.Jahangir Ahmed 6. D.Pochaiah, S/o Buchaia lDied] LR D.Narayana,(son) 7. D.Yellaiah, S/o.Lingaiah 8. Khaja Fasiuddin, S/o.Shamshuddin 9. Maqbool lqbal Ahmed, S/o.Jahangir Ahmed 1 0. P.Pochawa, Wo.Yadagiri 1 1 . Anjamma, Wo.Mallesham 1 2. Somawa, Wo.Uppalaiah 1 3. D.Laxmi, Wo.B.Ganesh 1 4. B.Babu, S/o.Yellaiah

15. J.Mallawa, W/o.Mallaiah 16.J.Laxmawa, Wo Ramulu (died) perLrs RR-116 -117 1 7. P.Kishtriah, S/o.Ranghavulu 1 8. D.Ramadevi, W/o.lndrasena Reddy l9.Hanmanth Reddy, S/o.Narender Reddy

20. Maqbool Ahmed, S/o.Jahangir Ahmed 21 . K.lsthari, S/o.Agaiah

22. K.Uppalaiah, S/o.Agaiah

23.Anwari l3egum, Wo.Gulam Mohiuddin

24. B.Pocheriah, S/o. Rajamallu

25. G.Kishteriah, S/o. Rajamallu

26. E.Ramulu, S/o.Rajamallu 27 . E.Ojaiah, S/o. Lachaiah

28. M.Yellawwa, Wo.Rajaiah

29.Kha1a Moinuddin, S/o.Jahangir Ahmed

30. E.Tirupathi Reddy, S/o.Bhoopalreddy 31 .D.Anjire<ldy, S/o.Durga Reddy

32. T.Yellavva, W/o.Ramulu

33. K.Yadire,ldy, S/o. Ramreddy

34. E.Balaiah, S/o.Mallaiah

35. S.RamreCdy, S/o.Yellareddy

36. S.Srinivas, S/o.Rajaiah

37. Ch.Koma raiah, S/o.Komaraiah

38. l.Narsimha Chary, S/o.Venkaiah

39. D.Ramrerldy, S/o Ramchandra Reddy, (died)per Lrs RR 139-141 ,

40. S.Sunderaiah, S/o.Gouraiah

41. S.Ramreddy, S/o.Yellareddy

42. P.Sathaiah, S/o.Balaiah

43. P.Ramaiah, S/o.Balaiah

44. B.Mallaiah, S/o.Mallaiah

45. T.Lachaura, Wo.Ramulu

46.M.Ojaiah(Jied), S/o.Mallaiah per Lrs RR 146-149,

47. M.Kanakaiah, S/o.Lingaiah

48. D.Ramgopalreddy, S/o. Rajireddy

49. Ch. Konmaraiah, S/o. Komaraiah

50. P.Yellawa, Wo.Lingaiah 51 . P.Komaraiah, S/o.Yellaiah

52. l.Ramakistaiah [died] LR Laxminatsamrrl, (wife) 53. K.Narsimhachari, S/o.Rajaiah

54.l.Balnarasimhachari, S/o. Laxminarsimha Chary, (died) per Lrc RR 159-160,

55. l.Satthawa, Wo.Sudarchanam

56.l.Chakrapani, S/o Venkaiah, (died) per Lrs RR 161-162,

57. l.Govindamma, W/o.Chandramouli

58. l.Narsimha Chari, S/o.Venkaiah

59. l.Kanakaiah, S/o.Balaiah

60. Shobharani, Wo. Narsimhareddy 61 . P.Rajaiah, S/o.Komaraiah

62. P.Rajaiah, S/o.Komaraiah

63. J.Rajaiah, S/o.Ramaiah 64.Ch.Mallaiah, S/o Narsaiah, (died) perLrs RR11O-115

65.A.Rajaiah, S/o Yellaiah, (died) per Lrs RR 144-145

66. B.Uppalaiah, S/o Shivaiah, (died) per Lrs RR118-120

67. B.Mallaiah, S/o.Shivaiah

68. Ch.Narsaiah, S/o. Mallaiah

69. K.Rajawa, S/o.Chandraiah

70. M.Chandraiah, S/o.Rayama{lu 71 . S.Balamallu, S/o.Sailu T2.S.Nagabhushnam, S/o Papaiah (died) per Lrs RR-163

73. S.Venkati, S/o Narsaiah (died) per Lrs RR154-158 7 4. K.Y dagiri, S/o.Rajaiah TS.Ch.Chandraiah, S/o Venkaiah, (died) per Lrs RR164-165

76.Ch.Sathaia, S/o Bhoomaiah, (died) per Lrc RR121-126 77 . Ch.Balaiah, S/o.Brahmaiah

78. Ch. Pramela, W/o.Viswanatham

79. Ch.Balaratnam, S/o. Narsaiah

80. Ch.Veeravva, W/o. Eashwaraiah

81.Ch.Brahmaiah, S/o Muthaiah (died) per Lrs RR142-143

82. S.Mallaiah, S/o.Rajaiah

83.R.Malla ahh, S/o Durgaiah, (died) per Lrs RR 127-132

84. R.Balamallu, S/o.Durgaiah

85. A.Laxmi, D/o.Chandraiah

86. B.Narsawa, Wo.Shivaiah

87. K.Rajavva, Wo.Chandraiah

88. P.Rajanrani, Wo.Kanakaiah

89. P.Rahanarsu, S/o.Rajaiah

90. M. Narsimhareddy, S/o.Balreddy 91 . B.Vajrarnma, Wo.Lachaiah

92. P.Rajanarsu, S/o. Rajaiah

93. Swamiclraran, S/o.Yellaiah

94. M.Rajanrani, Wo.Yellaiah

95. V.Narsirnhareddy, S/o.Ashireddy

96.A.Rajaiah, S/o.Ramaiah

97. A.Laxmaiah, S/o.Ramaiah

98.Khaja N;ajmal Abbas, S/o.lqbal Abbas

99. Khaja Kaisar Abbas, S/o.lqbal Abbas 100. Ali Hussain, S/o Mohd. Ali (died) per Lrs RR166-170 101. V.Lingamma,Wo.Ashireddy 102. S,Yellareddy, S/o Ashireddy, (died) per Lrs RRi5O-153 103. S.Malla Reddy, S/o.Ashireddy 1O4. K Yadagiri, S/o.Rajaiah 105. V Ashireddy, S/o.Ashireddy 106. C.Yadagiri, S/o.Kistaiah '1O7. M.Rajamani,Wo.Yellaiah 108. M.Mallaiah, S/o.Yellaiah 109. R Nagaiah, S/o.Mallaiah All R/o Miftapally (v) of Siddipet (M), Medak District., A.p. Respondents/Claimants S. Vajramma, W/o Ch. Mallaiah 1 10. 111. S.Srinivas, S/o Ch. Mallaiah 112. S. Yadagiri, S/o Ch. Mallaiah 113. I Bhoopal, S/o Ch. Mallaiah 114. S. Lalitha, D/o Ch. tvlallaiah 115. S. Padma, D/o Ch. Mallaiah Allare majors, R/o Mittapally (V), Siddipet (M), Medak District. L.Rs of deceased R.64 (LAASMP -903 of 2011)

116. Sri Jitta Babu, S/o J. Laxmawa 117. Bonagiri lndira, D/o J. Laxmawa Above both are majors, R/o Mittapa{ly (v), Siddipet (M) Medak District. L.Rs of deceased R.16 (LAASMP-919 ot2O11)

118. B. Rajawa, W/o B. Uppalaiah 119. B. Kanakaiah, S/o Uppalaiah 12O. B Mallawa, D/o Uppalaiah All are majors, R/o Mittapally (v), Siddipet (M), Medak District. L.Rs of deceased R.66 (LAASMP-922 ot 2O11)

121. Ch. Rukhamma, W/o Ch. Sathaiah 122. Ch Laxmi, S/o Ch. Sathaiah 123. Ch Laxmi, D/o Ch. Sathaiah 124. Ch. Jamuna, D/o Ch. Sathaiah 125. Ch. Padma, D/o Ch. Sathaiah 126. Ch. ttladhavi, D/o Ch. Sathaiah All are majors, R/o Mittapally (v), Siddipet (M), Medak District. L.Rs of deceased R.76 (LAASMP-92S of 2011)

127. R. Rajawa, W/o R. lVlallaiah 128. R. Nagaiah, S/o R. Mallaiah 129. R. Lingam Goud, S/o R. tvlallaiah 13O. R. Rajesham, S/o R. Mallaiah 131 . R. Laxmi, S/o R. Mallaiah

132. Fl. Bhagyawa, D/o. R. Mallaiah All are majors, R/o Mittapally (v), Siddipeft (M), Medak District. L.Rs of ,Jeceased R.83 (LAASMP-928 of 20111 133. Gihousiya Begum, Wo Maqbool Ahmed, 134. Cludisa Begum, D/o MaqboolAhmed, 135. Asia Maqbool, D/o Maqbool Ahmed, 136. lVlohd Jahangir Ahmad, S/o trrtaqbool Ahmed, 137. tvlohd lftakhar Ahmad, S/o Maqbool Ahmed, 138. Vt/ajiha Masroor, D/o Maqbool Ahmed, All are ntajorc, R/o Mittapally (v), Siddipet (M), Medak District. L.Rs of rleceased R.2 (LAASMP-931 of 2011) 139. Daram Venkata laxmi, Wo D. Ram reddy, 140. Daram Nageshwar Reddy, S/o D. Ram Reddy, 141. Daram Shravanthi, D/o D. Ram Reddy, All are majors, R/o Mittapally (v), Siddipet (M), Medak District L.Rs of deceased R.39 (LAASMP-934 of 2011)

142. Ch Sidawa, Wo Ch. Bramaiah 143. Ch Narsimha Chary, S/o. Ch. Bramaiah All are majors, R/o Mittapally (v), Siddipet (M), tvtedak District. L.Rs of cleceased R.81 (LAASMP-937 ot 2O11)

144. Arrde Sayyawa, D/o A. Rajaiah, 145. Chenna Kavitha, D/o A. Rajaiah All are nrajors, R/o Mittapally (v), Siddipet (M), Medak District. L.Rs of cleceased R.65 (LAASMP-940 of 20111

146. Mamindla llawa, W/o M. Ojaiah 147. Mamindla Pochaiah, S/o M. Ojaiah 148. Mamindla Yellaiah, S/o M. Ojaiah 149. K. Bhoomwa, D/o M. Ojaiah All are majors, R/o Mittapaily (v), siddipet (M), Medak District. L.Rs of deceased R.46 (LAASMP-943 of 20111

150. S. Rama, Wo S. Yella Reddy 151. S. Raju, S/o S. Yella Reddy 152. S. Thara, D/o S. Yella Reddy 153. S. Vishwalaxmi, S/o S. Yella Reddy All are majors, Rangadampally, H/o. Mittapally, Medak District. L.Rs of deceased R.102 (LAASMP-973 of 2011)

154. Smt. S. Bhoodava, Wo S. Venkati, Age:58 yearc, 155. S. Balaiah, S/o Venkati, Age:39 years, 156. S. Narsaiah, S/o Venkati, Age:32 years, 157. S. Srinivas, S/o Venkati, Age:29 years, 158. S. Manga Rani, D/o S. Venkati, Age:26 years, Above all re R/o Mittapally (v) Siddipet (M), Medak District. L.Rs of deceased R.73 (LAASMP-2384 ot 2011) Respondents 110 to 158 are brought on record as LRs of deceased RR- 64,16,66,76,83,2,39,81,65,46,102 and 73 as per court order dated 22-12-11 made in LAASMPs No. 903,919,922,925,928,931,934,932,940,943,102 and 73 respectively.

159. Laxmi Narasimha chary, S/o. ltikala Balanarasimha Chary, 160. ltikala Srinivas, Wo Balanarsimha Chary, Both are R/o H.No.9-1-333127, Langarhouse, Hyderabad. L.Rs of deceased R.54 (LAAStulP 27 of 2O16)

161. ltikala Venkaiah, S/o ltikala Chakrapani 162. ltikala Sakkubai, Wo ltikala Chakrapani Both are H.No.74, Gajwel Village and Mandal, [Vl,edak District. L.Rs of deceased R.56 (LAASIVIP-S2 of 2016)

163. Chennoju Ratnawa, Wo Cheenoju Nagabhushanam, Age:SS years, R/o H.No.4-07: Mittapaili(v) & (m) Medak Distiict. L.R of deceased R.72 (LAASMP-S8 of 2016)

164. Chennoju Venkata Chary, S/o C. Chandraiah, Rl/o H.No.3-36 165. Chenoju Sathyanarayana, S/o C. Chandraiah, Rl/o H.No.3-38 Both are Mittapalli V & M, Medak District. L.Rs of deceased R.75 (LAASMP 30 of 2016) 166. Flaziya Sultana, Age:58 years, R/o Sandi 167. Jakiya Sultana, Age:55 years, Karimnagar. 168. Ftukiya Sulthana, Age:42 years, Hyderabad. 169. Gousia Sultana, Age:46 yearc, Hyderabad. 170. lftamar Sultana, Age:35, Respondents 166 to 170 are D/o. Ali Hussain, R/o. H.No.10-1-2015, Charwadar Street, Near Girls, High School, Siddipet, Medak District. L.Rs of deceased R.100 (LAASMP-49 of 2016) ...Respondents Respondents No.159 to 17O are brought on record as LRs of deceased RR- 54,56,72,75 aLnd 100 as per the Hon'ble Court order dated 10-3-16 made in LAASMPS.No. 27,52,58,30 and 49/16 respectively. Appeal under Section 54 of L.A. Act of 1894 against the Judgment and Decree dated 08-03-2007 passed in L.A.O.P.No.703 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge Medak at Sangareddy. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds of Appeal, the orders of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of GP FOR APPEALS for the Appellant and M/s. Mohan Vinod & Associates, Advocate for the Respondents No.1,85 to 87,89 and M/s. A. Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents No.3,6 to 15 and Sri P. Laxma Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.4 and Sri G. Anandam, Advocate for the Respondents No.110 to 117,131,132,144,145,'147,148,149,161,162 and M/s. C.R.Pratap Rerddy, Advocate for the Respondents No.96 & 97. This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the Appeal Suit stands dismissed, confirming the order and decree dated 08-03-2'007 passed in O.P.No.703 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Medak;

2. That th,a appellants/claimants be and hereby are entitled to solatium at 30% and adrlitional market value at 12o/o per annum from the date of notification till the date of award, together with interest at 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and 15o/o per annum thereafter till the date of realization; and

3. That there shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge ttledak at Sangareddy. 2. Two CD Copies kam w HIGH COURT ?i 5l 1212025 DECREE LAAS.No.1039 ot 2OO7 DISMISSING THE LAAS I^.r\*L rys"r