The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appeltant: SRI. S. VENKATESHWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: Gp FOR APPEALS The Court delivered the following Judgment : l i I I t.l, t# i""-';*if.*,,;ii., " ..:,it*:. , t: -'.t-, 'r-r.,, - i'.17': , 1i L, n. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No .s52 0F 2025 JUDGMENT: (Per the llon'bte Si Justice Abh]l/.o:nrl Kunar Sloutli) When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is noticed that the issue raised in the present Appeal is squarely covered by the common judgment, daled 29'04'2025' passed by this Court in L.A.A.S.No.57 of 2024 & batch and by following the aforesaid common judgment, the present Appeal also deserves to be allowed'

2. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed following the aforesaid common judgment dated 29'O4'2025, passed by this Court in L.A.A.S.No-57 of 2024 & batch' and the market value is enhanced by two more times (1+2) than the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Ofhcer with ali consequential benehts. However, the appellants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period in preferring the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs' ,"{ j l ; I 1 I Misr:ellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed Sd/. K, SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ,1, //TRUE COPY// i L I 1 I ECTION OFFICER To, 1

2. J. The Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal, Gadwal Dist ( with records ) One CC to SIll. S. VENKATESHWAR REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] Two CCs to (iP FOR APPEALS ,High Court for the State of Telangana louTl 4 Two CD CoPies kuVPSL Note: Condition of pa;'ment of Costs of Rs 10,000l ( Rupees Ten Thousand only ) has been paiJ t;, tne Sri S. V,rnkateshwar Reddy , Counsel for the Appeltants as directed by the itorr,ui. Court vidc order dated t7 -07 -2025 to the Court Masters and Personal Secretaries io tt. ftor'Ut" .ludges Association, High Court for the State of Telzrngana , Hyderabad and filed Cost N4emo ( proof of payment ) No. 94099 dated 03-09-2025 ' Vt- I .tr4# a- \ :a \ I ! HIGH COURT DATEO:17107t2025 ,-,.-:. l o i1- ."$ A (\ )' a\ t\ tI + DECREE JUDGMENT LAAS.No.5S2 ot 202h i..tr.r.,tr.', ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS A-Lo6d;\ X-^' -:' ...-, .,-,..- ,,.-,-1. .. - ,r:..'.i:l-;+: * HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.Nos.57 . 81 and 724 0F 2024 COMMON DGMENT: 0a, Hadbh J 'n* Abh;,a tuttar Sbatili) \Xihen the mattets are taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the appellants had informed this Court that the issue raised in these Appeals is squarely covered by the judgment, dated 27.01.2025, passed by this Court in I-'AA'S'No'49 of 2024' Learned counsel had further contended that L'A'A'S'No'49 of 2024 was filed by claimant No'26 in O P'No'91 of 2014, dared

03.10.2018 and the appel-lants herein are other claimants in O.P.No.91 of 2014. Thcrefore, simi'lar order be passed in these appeals also. Learned counsel had further contended that IAAS No.49 of 2024 wx disposed of by relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in L.A'A.S.No'125 of 201'5 and batch' dated 27 .09.2022, whereby the market value of the land acquired therein was enhanced by two mote times than the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer with all consequential benehts' -rl 2 however, lbr the delay period in preferring the, appeais, the claimants ar:e rlot entitled for ant interest.

3. Learned counsel For rhe appellants had firrther contencled tlrat the judenrent, dated 27.09.2022 passed rn L.A.,L.S.No.1,25 of 2015 and ba:ch was also confitmed by rhe Apex Court in S.L.P.(Cir.il)No.28925 of 2024, dated 1,7.09.2024. Uherefore, the present appeals can also be disposed of rn terms of the ]udgmenr, dared 27 .01 .20 25 passed in L.A. A.S.No .49 c:f 2Ct2l.

5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for dte 1., rcspondent- [-and Acquisirion Officer had contended thar the purpose of a,:quiring lands of appellants is [or Rr.rlampadu Balancing Res,rnroir under Jawahar Lift Irrigauon project and Priyadarshi ,iurala Project and G.O.N{s.No.234, dated 15.10.1993 and G.O.Ms.No.291, dated 05.08.1 9g2 ate not appiicable ro the said irrigation lrrojects. Therefore, all rhe appeals are liable to be dismissed. \r I d l I I I J

4. Having considered dre rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the Division Bench of this Court in L.A.A.S.No.2 of 201.6, dated 27.09.2022 and L.A.A.S.No.4 of 201,6, dated 15.09.2022 held drat the said G.Os. are applicable for all the Irtigation Projects, and though che said G.Os. were issued specifically for Srisailam Hydro Power Projects. L.A.A.S.No.125 c>f 2015 and batch, dated 27.09.2022 and L.A.A.S.No.4 of 201,6. dated 15.09.2022 were allowed and the matket value was enhanced by rwo more times than the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the order, dated

27.09.2022, in L.A.A.S.Nc>.125 of 2015 ard batch, the State has carried the mattcr to the Apex Court by filtng S.L.P.(Civd).No. 28925 ol 2024 and the Apex Court uide order, dated 1.7.09.2024, confirmcd rhe order passed by the Division Bench of this court in L.A.A.S.No.125 ol 20'15 and batch. Therefore, the present appeals can aiso be disposed of in terms of the judgment, dated

27.09.2022, passed in L.A.A.S.No.125 of 201,5 and batch. - ---l c 4

5. . Accordiegly, al1 the appeals are allowed by following the judgment, dat(:d 27.09.2022, passed in L.A.A.S.No .125 of 2015 and, batch, ar-rd the n-rarket value rs e nhanced by rwo rr-ror.e umes (1 +2) than the velu : fixed by the Land Ac<luisition O fEcer rvrth all consequenrial benefits. Howe'er, the appellants are.or enrirle(i for interest for rhr: delai. period in prefernng the appeals There shall be no order as to costs. l\liscellaneous Peutions, if ani,, pending rn these appeals shall stand closed JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI JUSTICE TIRUMAI.A DEVI EA,DA Dete: 29.04.202:t Norc' Regsrrv to rnner copr. of .he judgmenr dated 27.09 202i In I-AAS No.125 of20i5. @.o) rkk/t'rat H I 1 l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD . - THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF_JULY TWO TUOUSRUO AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S. NO: 552 OF 2025 Between: 'Agriculture - Ashi. Reddy' 66 YrstOcc 1 Chukka Laxmidevamma, Wo Chinna ' ;;'iH; r.rr"ii',iriri,irr"s" oint'"i'i Mandal' wahaparthv District' 2. Chukka Munemma, Wo Linga Reddy' 69 Yrs 3. Chukka Chinna Ashi Reddy' S/o Narsappa' 71 Yrs 4. Chukka Ranga Reddy, S/o Sayanna' 64 Yrs 5. Chukka Muni Reddy, S/o Sayanna' 71 Yrs 6. Chukka Jangamma, Wo Muni Reddy' 66 years old 7. Chukka Laxmamma, Wo Ranga Reddy' 68 years old B. Thirupathamma, Wo Thirupathi Reddy' 42 Yrs' 9. Chukka Nalla Reddy, S/o Sayanna' 66 Yrs 10.Chukka Satyamma, S/o Nalla Reddy' 62 years '1 1 . Chukka Venkat Reddy, Sio Huzuranna' 62 years old 12. Chukka Venkatamma, Wo Venkata Reddy' 58 Yrs' 13. C.Ramalaxmamma, Wo Bhagavanthu Reddy' 36 Yrs 14.Sarva ReddY, S/o Sai ReddY,81 Yrs l5.Narayana Reddy, S/o Sarva Reddy died per Cl No 21 16. Muni ReddY, S/o Sawa Reddy; 56 Yrs lT.Vaaddigadda Laxmamma, S/o Pedda Chenna Reddy' 71 years ls.Vaaddigadda Sharada, S/o Ashi Reddy' 46 years old lg.Vaaddigadda Pedda Venkat Reddy' S/o Pedda Chenna Reddy' 52 Yrs 20.Vaaddigadda Chinna Venkat Reddy' S/o Pedda Chenna Reddy' 48 Yrs ,inin*n,*.",HjB j"ifl AH,?fi :fltriifl "''Et'lfii"r?,?:off ''curtureand ...APPELLANTS/ Claimants AND The Land Acquisition ()fficer - Cum- Special Deputy Collector, LA Unit, pJp, Gadwal. RESPONDENT/ Respondent Appeal Under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 30-01-2009 in O.p.No. 23 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Senior C ivil Judge at Gadwal. The appeal ccming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds filed in the Aopeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower courl and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri s. venkateshwar Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and G.P. for Appeals on behalf of the Respondent. This Court do,.h crder and decree as follows: 1 . That the Ap5real be and hereby is allowed . 2. That the lvlarket value is enhanced by two more times (1+2) than the value fixed by the l_and Acquisition Officer, with all consequential benefits. 3 That appellants be and hereby are not entifled to interest for the deray period of 5,900 days in preferring the appeal.

4. That there shall be no order as to costs. I Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SCCTION OFFICER ltTRIE CoPyl To 1. The Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal, Gadwal Dist.

2. Two C.D.Copies Kul/PSLw I I i i-L :..i. i1. ) L,:i t, lJ .$' "s.N \\ -r1,,,,?' , ! g" \rl:.{' ',-''..|. :lj? rj:li --a: -: HIGH COURT DATED:1710712025 + DECREE JUDGMENT LAAS.No.552 ol 2025 ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS (o6A \ &-"