The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 J Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department (Land Acquisition), Secretariat Buil,Jings, Hyderabad. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, represented t y its Commissioner, C.C. Buildings, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, C.C. Buildings, Tankbund Road, Fyderabad.

4. M/s. Kohinoor Glass Factory, Fathenagar, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Managing

Director Sri Mahesh Chand,

5. The Court of the lstsenior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Flyderabad, represented by its Siristidar. .. RespondenUS l.A. NO: 3 OF 2010(CCC AMP. NO: 371 OF 2O1Ol Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the decre: in OP No. 39/02 passed by the Hon'ble 1st Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. L Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Government Pleader for Appels Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Sri Mohd. Muslehuddinasim The Court delivered the following: i THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH C.C.C.A.No.98 OF 2010 IUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This appeal is filed aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 17.02.2009, passed in O.P.No.39 of 2002 by the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

2. Since the sole appellant passed away during pendency of the present appeal, his legal representatives u/ere brought on record as appellant Nos.2to 6

3. Heard Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for respondent No.1.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants had contended that the appellants and respondent No.2 are claiming ownership over the land admeasuring 7018 Square Yards in Survey Nos'80/4 and 81/4 and land admeasuringS4T Square Yards in Survey No.81/5 situated at Fathenagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy ) ) District. The Government acquired the subjec t lands for the 2 AXS,J & SK,J C.C.C.A.No.98 ot 201O purpose of development of Railway Station unrler Mass Rapid Transport System Project, pursuant to the nolification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Acfl. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed Award on

17.08.2002 fixing the market value for the srbject lands at Rs.1,050/- per Square Yard.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants had fu.i ther contended that as there was title dispute in respect of th e subject lands between the appellants and respondent No.2, r,:spondent No.2 sought reference under Section 30 of the Act, which was numbered as the subject O.P.No.39 of 2002 on th: file of learned I Senior Civil |udge, City Civil Court, Hyderabarl, and deceased appellant No.1 also sought reference under Sectir'ns 18 and 30 of the Act, which was numbered as O.P.No.11 of 20J4 on the file of very same Court. In O.P.No.11 of 2004, deceasec- appellant No.1 has filed I.A.No.198 of 2009 on 14.08.2008, seeking to club O.P.No.11 of 2004 and O.P.No.39 of 2002 and rlecide both the \ \ I I -l AKS,J & SK,J C.C.C.A.No.9a of 2010 O.Ps. together. But, the reference Court, instead of clubbing and adjudicating both the O.Ps. together, adjudicated O.P.No.39 of 2002 in favour of respondent No.2 oide irnp:ugned order, dated "17.02.2009, and the O.P., which was preferred by deceased appellant No.1 i.e. O.P.No.11 of 2004, which was renumbered as O.P.No.1575 of 2013, is still pending.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that if the impugned order, dated 77.02.2009, passed in O.P.No.39 of 2002 is not set aside, filing of O.P.No.11 of 2004 by appellant No.1 u,ould become a futile exercise. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the appeal by setting aside the impugned order, dated "17.02.2009, and let the reference Court club both the O.Ps. i.e. O.P.No.39 of 2002 and O.P.No.11 of 2004, which was renumbered as O.P.No.1575 of 2013, and hear both the cases together on merits. 7 Learned Government Pleader for appeals appearing for respondent No.1 had contended that the reference Court ought to have clubbed both the O.Ps., AS the appellants as well as 1 \, 4 AKS,J & SK,J C.C.C.A.No.98 ot2010 respondent No.2 are claiming title over the very same property. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the appeal to that effect.

8. This Court, having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the consi< ered view that since there is title dispute between the appellants and respondent No.2, and they have filed separate O.Ps. for payment of compensation in respect of the same lands, the learrred I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad, ought'o have clubbed and disposecl of both the O.Ps. together on merits. Therefore, this Court is of thc view that the present appeal can b< disposed of by settirrg asidc tl-re order, dated 17.02.2009, passed Ln O.P.No.39 of 2002 by the Iearned I Senior Civil Judge Ciry Civil Cour! Hyderabad, and by directing the learned I Senior Civil ludge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to club both the O.P;. i.e. O.P.No.39 of 2002 and O.P.No.11 of 2004, which was r.enumbered as O.P.No.1575 of 2073, and hear both the O.Ps. togt:ther on merits. Since the said O.Ps. pertain to the years 2002 and 2004, the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civit Court, Hyderabad, is ) ) requested to dispose of the said O.ps., as expeditiously S 5 AKS,J & SK,J C.C.C.A.No.9a oI20lO possible, after giving opportunity to all the parties.

9. With the above observations/directions, the appeal disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. , To, //TRUE COPYII Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Hyderabad. (OUT) 9,]ll 9"ln Hyderabad (With records) Reddy, Advocate [OpUCl igh Court for the State of T-elangana at 1 Ihu I Senior Civit Judge, City 2. One CC to Sri. L. prabhakar 3 I*9 CCs to Gp for Appeats, H 4. One CC to Sri Mohd. Muslehuddinasim, Advocate tOpUCl 'by T*o cD coPies DU;h I I l I I I I I i I i I l I HIGH COURT DATED:2110'l12025 t 14: q (ro i lE S14 q 16 Jtrlr ilm o^ JUDGMENT CCCA.No.98 ol 2O10 * Dr APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF 2{ 1 t, iI