The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : SRI S' RAHUL REDDY ' LAKSHMI M/S' PINGALI Counsel for the Respondent Nos' 5 & 5 : SRI P' GOVIND REDDY' SPECIAL COUNSEL, STATE OF A.P. 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.291 of 2O15 JUDGMENT: A)er llatlbLe Srlr Justrce tin.llLutLt Deu Eadu) This appeal, under Secrion 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 i394, (1or sirort '[he Act') is prelerred br. the Special Deputy Collc'cLor, Nalgonda aggrieved bv the order and decree dated

13.12.2013 passed in L.A.O.P.No.83 of 2009 by the learned Senior Crvil Judge at Miryalaguda (hereinafter referred to as .the reference Court').

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

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the Government acquired an extent of Ac.40-03 guntas of land in survey Nos.247, '218,'23O,253, 254, 257 and 258 of Rebale Village of Mellacheruvu Mandal, lor the purpose of foreshore submergence under Dr. K.l- Rao S:rgar IPCP) Prolect. A draft nottfication was issued under Sec[ion 4(1) of the Act on 27.08.2005 in the Gazette. After conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation for the acquired lands at Rs.42,OO0/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have fi1ed a petition for 2 AKs,J & ETD,J LAAS No.291 2015 reference and the same \rras referred under Section 18 oI the Act to the reference Court

4. The rel'ercnce Court has lramed the follr.ru ir-Lg poin ts firr consideration Whcther the Arvard passed bv the Land .\cquisirion Officer is not reasonable and adequate? 2 Whether the claimants are entitled to gct cnhancccl compensation to the acqurred lalds ald structules. il so, at what rate?

3. To what relief? "

5. The claimants before the reference Court got examined PWs 1 to 3 ald Exs.Al to A8 were marked. One Yalala Ramulu, Special Deputy Collector got examined as RW1 and Ex.Bl was marked.

6. Based on the evidence on record, the Reference Court has awarded Rs.1,30,000/- per acre and for the strr-rctures at Rs.76,63,252/- under Section 23(1) of the Act u'ith 3O()i solatium on lhe e nhanced compensatior-r arnount including Lh!' slrllcluril value. Furlher. it rrvas also hclcl tirat thc claimanLs arc.rr'rLillcd t() additional market value at the rate of 12% per annurn irom the date of notification lo the date of award i.c., from Iil.O9.2O05 to

30.1 1.2007 including the structure value and the interest (r. 9%, per annum from the date of taking possession for a period of one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum on the enhanced 3 AKS,J & ETD,I LAAS No.291 2015 compensation amount, soiatium and additionai market value till the enhanced compensalion amount and structure value is paid or deposited into Court. Aggrieved by t.l:e said enhancement, the Special Deputy Collector has preferred the present appeal.

7. Heard the submissions of the learned Government pleader for the appellant and Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

8. Le arned Government Pleader for the appellant has submitted lhat it 1s a consent ag'zrrd and rhat the Reference Court has committed an error in enhancing the compensation and also au zrrding almounts to the structures, though there u'ere no slrLrr'l Llres it'r thc lrcquircd lands. It is contended that though there are fish tanks, thel'are kept fallow and hence, no amount need to be granted for structures. Therefore, prayed to set aside the award to the extent of compensation granted for structures.

9. l,earned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the Reference Court has rightly enhalced the compensation aIrd that it does not call for any interference.

10. Considering the above rival submissions, this Court frames the following points for consideration 4 i.K5.l & trD,l r l.iS \. l-c1 2ii5 Whethcr t.lle claimants arc not enhancement of compensationi) ( nLitlc(l [t>r 2 Whether the clarmants are not entitled for anv amount to\r'ards structures? Whether the order and decree of the reference Court need any interference? 4 To what relieP

11. POINTNOs.l and2: a) The evidence of PW1 reveals that the land acquired was having all the civic amenities expected of a developed village and that the land is local.ed near the Krishna river and lt ls a Grampanchal,'a lh hnving civtc etmenitics like upper prinlau school, fair price shop and it is also elcit.ed through l-rim rhat lht' lhrmcrs u'ere raising crtmtrtcrcittl crops l.c. colton, cllrllre s, Rcr' (ir,ttn :rlld Paddy through irrigation under the Krishna river. Sevcral cemenl induslries arc also established and are running n( ar tlle acquircd Iands. He has submitted that their lands are entitled trl be treated as "A" category lands and that a minimum compensa tion of Rs.1,8O,OOO/- per acre needs to be awarded besides other benefils. He further submitted that they have incurred loans from Primary Agriculture Co-Operative Society for raising fish tanks and therefore, their structures have to be va1ued at Rs.85,14,724 l-. b) PW2 is a third parry to the proceedings ancl a former sarpanch of the r.illage It is elicited through his evidence that he 5 AKs,,' & ETD,J LAAS No 291 2015 iiruncl fish tanks in the lands under acquisitlon and that there was crection oi electricrtv p<rlcs, u'atcr pipes, transformers and that LIrcrc trrc prlrc lincs lrorn hrishna river to the acquired lands and that in his prcsenr:e panchanama was conducted b1, the village serrpanch. c) PW3 is also a former sarpanch of the village and a lhird party to the proceedings and that he was also the witness to panchanama conducted by the government servants with regard to the efsting fish tanks in the acquired lands. d) A perusal of Exs.Al to A7 reveals that an inspection was conducted by the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Nalgonda District along u'ith the other Government officials and have submitted reporl to the Special Deputy Collector of land acquisition for pulichinthala project and also lhat there was internal communicatron in thls regard betu,een the Executlve Engineer and the Spcr:ral Dcputv Collector, Pulichinthala pru1ect. A perusal of Ex.A8 rcvearls that it is a panchanama of the acquired Iand and it bt ars the srglratLlres ol PWs 2 and 3. e) It is elicited through RW 1 that the total land acquired under notiflcation was Ac.235-08 guntas including the land in this case which is Ac.4O-O3 guntas, out of the said Ac.235-O8 guntas, an 5 A(s,J & ETD,I I-AAS N0,291 2015 extent ofAc.183-15 guntas was covered under consent award. The present award is passed for the remaining Ac.51.33 guntas. Thus, it is elicited through him that lhe award passed in the 1;resent case is not a consent alrard. He further admitted that lhc l,AO paid atl amount of Rs.I ,30,000/- pcr acre to A i lltctot-t llrnds. Rs.1,00,000/ per acre to B Catcgon lands and Rs (>0.(tt)0t' for'(-1" category lands and rhat the Land Acquisition Officcr cotrsiderecl lhc acquired Iancls in the prcsent case Lo be 'B'Catcgon lands atlcl thus, awarded Rs.1 ,00,000/- per acre. He lurther stateC lhat lhere are fish ponds, pipe Iines from Krishna river, electrification bv wires and poles to fish tank, electric motors and tran sformers in the land under acquisition. He further admitted that the lands under acquisition are nearer to Krishna River and that they are developed lands but stated that there was no cuitivation of hshes in the ponds at the time of acquisition. f) The admission made by RW1 and a perusal of Ex.B1 reveals that it was not a consent art,ard as far as the remaini tlg exten t ol Ac.51.33 guntas o[ ]and is concerned and the prcsent t ase falls irr the said acqursition and also that the acquired lanrl hari lish tanks and structurcs and that it is ttt::rr thc Krishna rircl anrl lrilcl llll lllc amenrties like fish ponds, pipe lines lrom Knshna Rivcr. l AKs,J & ETD,] IAAS No.291 2015 electriflcation by wires and poles to fish tank, electric motors and transformers in the land under acquisition' g) Therefore, in view of the potentiality of the 1and, the claimants sought for enhancement before the reference Court and the reference Court was justified in enhancing the compensation. FIouever. thc learned Government Pleader has argued that :iu arding thc amounts torvards struclures is not correct. The lcarncrl Clor crn:net'rt Pleaclcr has stressed on thc point that even if the au'ard is conlirmed, the amount granted tov"ards structures nceds to bc dcducted. h) Since, it is elicited through the evidence on record that there are fish ponds in the acquired lands and for erection of fish ponds with a1l the amenities, the claimants must have incurred a lot of expenditure and thus, the reference Court ought to have awarded compensation for the said fish ponds. But the reference Court has awarded the amount to structures instead of holding the same towards hsh ponds. Therefore, it is held that the amount that is awarded to$,ard.s structures by the reference Court has to be auarded for the fish Ponds. r) Considering the evidence on record and the lact that it is not :r consent atvard passed bl the Land Acquisition Officer, this Court 8 iAAS \c:il 13l : holds that order ancl decrce of the rclerence CoLrrt necd no interference. Thereforc, it is held rhat rhe c'laimanrs arc cnrillcd for enhancement of compensation to Rs. I,30,000/ - per acre and for the fish ponds at Rs.76,63,2521- instead o[ srrucrures under Section 23(1) of the Act, apart from the other statutorj' benelits as granted by the reference Court. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 12, POINT NO.3: In vi.ew of the reasoned finding arrived at Point No. 1, this Court holds that the order and decree of the reference Clourt do not need any interference.

13. POINT NO.4: In the resuit. the appr:a) is dismisscd upho)dinq thc ordcr and decree clated 13.12.2O13 passcd in L.A.O.P.N,r.83 oi 2OO9 br the learned Scnior Civil .Judge at Miryalaguda. Thcre shall be no order as to cosls. Miscellaneous Petitiqns pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO I JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Miryalagluda , Nalgonda District. ( with records) 2. Two CCs to G.P for GP FOR APPEALS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. @t"L - 3Thesecretary,TheStateofAndhraPradesh,Minor,Medium&lvlajor trrrgat,on Dep5rtment, Secretariat, Hyderabad, presently Amaravathi' \

4. The Special Collector, Pullichintala Project, Guntur' Guntur District' 5 One CC to SRl. S RAHUL REDDY Advocate IOPUC] 6. One CC to Special Counsel , State of Andhra Pradesh in Telangana High Court.

7. Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:2110312025 -- I)lr( RLI: JUDGMENT LAAS.No.291 ot 2015 DISMISSING THE LAAS WITI IOTJT COSTS ( e :) o r-) 1i\E s i-4; ,.. j; ), 30 rPn tffi I ;.. l:i.-,-._----- \c, \\ \ ?5>{ /li :-:r.a-;+.r-..-+i#- t! IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA LA.A.S, NO: 291 oF 2015 Between: TheSpecialDeputyCollector,PulichinthalaProje-ct,.UnitVl'Kodad(Land-Acquisition oni."il, Nrigoridabistrict AND " Petitioner/ Respondent KukatPallY, HYderabad

1. Tatineni Ramesh Chandrababu S/o Late Rama Swamy Aged 62 years Occ ' A;;fiii;;;; nTo rriil'ro zor, Nasarathna Residencv' Madhavinasar colonv' 2. Tatineni Shyamala, W/o.Ramesh Chandrababu' Age 56 years' Occ - n;rslwitl hlo rtat r'io 2or, Nagarathna Residency' Madhavinagar Colony' KukatPallY, HYderabad - 72 ^

3. Smt Tatineni Neelima, D/o.Ramesh Chandrababu, Age 37 years, New Jersy, U,S,A,

4. Smt. Tatineni Nirupama, D/o Ramesh Chandrababu' Age 35 years' Melbourne, Australia. (Claimant Nos.3 and 4 are represented .by their natural father and G'P A Holder claimant uo i n"r"in i5 Tatineni Ramesh chandra Babu. R/o.Flat --Nrg;rat,na""niiioency,' hrladhavinagar colony, Kukatpally, iri;ioi HYderabad - 72)-

5. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep .by.its Secretary' Minor' Medium & Major lrrigation Department, Secretariat Hyderabad'

6. The Special Collector, Pullichintala Project, Guntur' Guntur District- ...RESPONDENTNos'5&6 rResoondentNos.5&6areimpleadedasperCourtorderdated2l-03-2o25vide i n r.ro r of 2024 in L A.A.s.No. 291 of 2015 ) Appeal Under Section 54 of L'A' Act against the Judgment and-Decree t_Aop No. 83 of-2009 on the file of the court of -in passed iIt"a te_tz-zors Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda' / / ' The..appeal i :"p19 ?n.for.hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of /,' grounds fired in the Appear, ttre .tudgme;;tl-na o""r". of the Lower court and . the record in the ca.se and upon hea;in;';;'arguments of G.p. for Appeals on behatf of the AppelranG ;r;';; i'ii.'H#rr Reddv and M/s. pinsari iakshmi, Advocate for Resp_ondent Nos. r to'J lna Sri p.Govind R;A, Special Counsel , State of A.p. for Respondeni rrr*.J A e . This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. r"t the appeal be and hereby is dismissed. 2' That the craimants ue trereoy are entired for enhancement of compensation to Rs. 1, 3O,OOO/_ o"i r"." and for the fish ponds at Rs. 7 6'63,2s2t - i nsread of srructures r"a"i s"*i"i-ii' ii r' Li',i'""'oT,, ro"* from the other statutory oenerits as'g;ted by the reference court. -..-- ---r

3. That there shall be no order as to coiG'in tnis appJ.- -ano - To

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda 2. Two C.D.Copies t ECTTON OTF\CER_ _--7 SD/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR HIGH COURT DATED:2110312O25 DECREE LAAS.No.291 of 2015 I)ISMISSING THE I,AN S WITHOLIT COSTS 3 l,l-