The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri B.H.R.Chowdary Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR APPEALS LAAS.No;499 of 2008 Appeal filed trnder Section 54 of L.A. Act against the . udgment and Decree dated 27 -09-2007 passed in O.P.No.786 of 1998 on the fiie of the Court of the I Additional District Judge at Nizamabad. Between: r* -,,3

1. Smt. Laxmi Bai, Wo. Vinayak Rao, Age.60 years, R/o. H.Nc.4-43, Navipet Village and lvlandal, Nizamabad District.

2. Kashinath Rao S/o. Nagnath Rao, Age:43 years, R/o. H.No.4-34, Navipet Village and l/andal, Nizamabad District.

3. Purushotham Rao, S/o. Naganath Rao, Age:40 years, R/o H.No.4-43l1, Navipet Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District.

4. Rajeshwar Rao, S/o. Nagnath Rao, Age:34 years, R/o. H.No.4-35, Navlpet Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District.

5. Bhaneswar Rao, Sio. Naganath Rao, Age:32 years, R/o. H.Nc.4-35, Navipet Village and ftrlandal, Nizamabad District. ...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT No.S' to I AND

1. The Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Niza nabad. ...RESPONDENT/REFERENCER

2. K. Rama Rao, S/o. Late K. Dhondu Rao, Nizamabad. 3. K. Narayana Rac, S/o. Late K. Dhondu Rao, Age:5'1 years, R/o. Navipet 4. K. Gangahar Rao S/o. Late K. Dhondu Rao, Age:46 years, Rio. Navipet 5. K. Srinivas Rao S/o. Late K. Dhondu Rao, Age:41 years, R/o. Navipet 6. Badanolla Rajarnallu, S/o. Pothanna, Age:62 years, R/o. Navipel 7. Badanolla Susheela, Wo. Monaiah, Age:61 years, R/o. Navipet 8. Badanolla Laxmi, S/o. Monaiah, Age:55 years, R/o. Navipet (Respondents 2: 1o 8 are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENTS/CLATMANANTS 1 to 4 and 10 to 12 -& 1l&. {a Counsel for the Appellant: Sri B.H.R.Chowdary Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR APPEALS The Court deliv'ered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT 1) .J / , -- ---'tc a l I HON'BLE SIi.I ruSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHT]TTY LAAS.Nos.497 & 499 of 2008 COMMONJUD (}MENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Lermi Nartltanu Alishe ry) Since both these Appeals are filed by the claimants aggrieved bir the same judgment passed by the Reference tlourt, both are heard together and are being disposed of b1, this co nmon judgment

2. Heard Sri B.H.R.Chorvdary, leamed counsel tbr.the appellants/claimiuts, and learned Govemment Pleader for Appeals appearing for respondent No.1 -Land Acquisition Offlcer.

3. Both the Appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (fbr shorl 'the Act'), are filed by the clai,nants aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27.09.2007 passod in O.P.No.786 of 1998 on rhe flle of the I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Cour1,).

4. In brief, the facts of the case are that the subject 1un6l5, i.e., anS1[ent of Acs 8.00 guntas of land in Sy.No.925, Ac.O.17 guntas \ 2 AKS,J&LNA,J LAAS.Nos.197 & 499 of2008 in Sy.No.497, Ac 0.23 yz guntas in Sy.No.499 of Navipet Village, Nizamabad District, belonging to the appellahts/claimants were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections of Navipet Village; that Draft Notification under Section a(1) of the Act was published in the A.p. Gazette on 10.03.1994; that possession of the acquired lands was taken on 11.06.1995; that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award t vide proceedings, dated 16.01.1996, fixing market value of the acquired lands @ Rs. 12,000/- per acre for dry lands and @Rs.22,000/- per acre for wet lands.

5. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants/claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to the competent Civil Court and was numbered as Op.No.7g6 of 1998 on the file ofthe Reference Court.

6. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellants/ claimants, P.Ws-l and 2 were examined and Exs.A-l to A-g were J I r,-.r I & a^!. J 1s.15 .\'os J9-.1 !t9 a.2008 marked. On belialf of the Refening Officer, RW-1 rvas exrtmined and Ex.B-1-Au ard was marked. The Reft:rcnce Court, on appreciation of the evidenc o, both 7 . oral and docu tnentary, available on record, enhanc'':d the compensation ltrr both wet and dry lands to Rs 56,334/- p()r acre, apart from granting all other benefits under the Act to the appe ltants/c [a irnants. Not satisfied with the enhancement nrade by the Reference llour-t in the impugned order, the prcsent App:als are fi led by the .cla irnants.

8. Leatnecl counsel for the appellants/claimants mainly contended thal the Reference Court has frxed the market "alue of the acquired lands based on Ex.A-2-judgment of the erstu'h Ie High Court of r\n<llra Pradesh in AS.No.2505 of 1988, by giving escalation @ l0% per annum for a period of 16 years Leamed counsel furthe'r contended that the Reference Courl has 'ailed to take note of th,: fact that in the judgment under Ex.A-2, the High Court has fixr:cl the market value of the acquired lands th':reunder after deducting 1/3'd towards developmental charges, and the Reference Court has enoneously once again deducted 1/3'd of the ') l I 4 AKS,J&LNA.J LAAS.Nos.197 & 499 oJ200E total calculated amount towards developmental charges. Therefore, leamed counsel prayed to set aside the imlugned order and enhance the market value ofthe acquired lands. 9. On the other hand, leamed Government pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondenrland Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and relying upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rightly hxed the market value of the acquired lands, which needs no interference bv his Court.

10. Apropos the above rival contentions of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the only issue that falls for consideration in this Appeal is whether the Reference Court was justified in deducting l/3'd of the amount towards developmental charges while fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands based on Ex.A-2.

11. This Court has thoroughly examined the entire evidence available on record. On a bare reading of Ex.A-2-judgment in A.S.No.2505 of 1988, it is evident that in the said case, the High / 5 .1,{5 / & a,|.'l, J t..1A5..\'os 19: & 99 o.12008 Court, basecl on the evidence available on record, has flxed the market value of the acquired lands therein @ Rs.32,500- per square yard, after ded u cting I /3'd towards developmental charge s' The subject acquirecl lands and the acquired lands covered under Ex.A-2 are similar in nature. Therefore, the Reference Co "rrt has rightly taken into consideration the market valtre fixed under Ex.A-2 and fiuther, having regard to the fact that th': draft notification in the present case was issued in the year 19)4 i.e', after a perigd irI 16 years from the date of issuance of noti rcation i.e., in the year' .978 in respect ol the lands covered Lrnder Ilx.A-2, granted escalation fbr 16 years @ l0% per alrnum and calculated the market value of the acquired land as Rs.84,500/- pcr acre. However, [he llelerence Court has erred in once again de Jucting l/3'd of Rs.8.1,500i- towards developmental charges and lhereby, l fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands @ Rs.56,334l- per acre.

12. When the Reference Court has relied upon Ex.l',-2 and fixed the market value of the subject acquired lands brLsed on Ex.A-2, it has totally misdirected itself in once again deducting I I \ 6 AKS,J&LNA,J t.AnS.Nos.497 & t99 o! 2008 h' 1/3'd of the amount calculated towards developmental charges and thereby, fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands @Rs.56,3341- per acre instead of Rs.g4,500/_ per acre. 13. In view of the above, this Court holds that the impugned order of the Reference Court is unsustainable and invalid and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, these Appeals are allowed, setting aside the impugned order of the Reference court and enhancing the market value of the subject acquired lands from Rs.56,334l_ per acre to Rs.84,500/- per acre. It is needless to say that the appellants/claimants are entitled to aI the statutory benefits like solatium, additional market value, etc., under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the enhanced market value.

15. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPY// A.V.S,S,C.S.M. SARMA J INT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional District Judge at Nizamabad. (with records, if any) 2. One CC to Sri B.H.R.Chowdary, Advocate tOpUCl 3. Two CCs to GP FOR APPEALS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies o, kam/gh ,i I t HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 t k) C).J 'a_ S A r{: 1O API il6 ('l .l _2,' t) c:.? 6gplMoN JUDGMENT+CoMMoN'DECREE LAAS.Nos.497 & 499 of 2008 ALLOWING THESE APPEALS ,,,,C P IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 3413 ] FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY LAAS.Nos:497 & 499 of 2008 LAAS.No. 497 ot 2008 Between: tilr";l K. Rama Rao, S/o. Late K. Dhondu Rao, Age;49 Vears, R/o. H.No.5_6_S62lj saraswathinagar, Road No. r, Nizamabad. "...npiEll]qlriiaiiiiiiar,nir",il AND 1 The Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad ...RESPONDENT/REFERENCER

2. K. Narayana Rao, S/o. Late K. Dhondu Rao, Age:42 years, R/o. Navipet. 3. K. Gangadhar Rao, S/o. Late K. Dhondu Rao, Age:3g years, R/o. Navipet. 4. K. Srinivas Rao, S/o, Late K. Dhondu Rao, Age:34 years, R/o. Navipet. 5. Smt. Laxmi Bai, Wo. Vinayak Rao, Aged S years, R/o. Navipet. 6. Kashnath Rao, S/o. Nagnath Rao, Age:42 years, R/o. Navipet. 7. Purushotham Rao, S/o. Nagnath Rao, Age:40 years, R/o. Navipet. 8. Rajeshwar Rao, S/o. Nagnath Rao, Age:34 years, R/o. Navipet. 9. Bhaneswar Rao, S/o. Nagnath Rao, Age:32 years, R/o. Navipet. 10. Badanolla Rajamallu, S/o. pothanna, Age:63 years, R/o. Navipet. 1'1. Badanolla Susheela, Wo. Monaiah, Age:61 years, Rio. Navipet. '12. Badanolla Laxmi, S/o. Monaiah, Age:55 years, R_/o. Navipet. (Respondents 2 to 12 are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANANTS 2 TO 1 2 / L I LAAS.No.499 of 2008 Between: l. Smt. Laxmi Bar Wo. Vinayak Rao, Age:60 years' R/o H No'4-43, Navipet Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District.

2.KashinathRao,S/o.NagnathRao,Age:43years,R/oHNo4-34,Navipet 3. Purushotham Rao, S/o. Nagnath Rao, Age:40 years, R/c H No 4-43l'1' Navipet Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District.

4. Raieshwar Ra,: S/o. Nagnath Rao, Age:34 years, R/o H No'4-35, Navipet Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District.

5. Bhaneswar Rac, S/o. Nagnath Rao, Age:32 years, R/o. H No 4-35, Navipet Village and IVlandal, Nizamabad District. ...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT No.S to 9 AND e. -'l {- ?

1. The Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer' N zamabad ' ...RESPONDENT/REFERENCER

2. K. Rama Rao, S/o. Late K. Dhondu Rao, Nizamabad. 3. K. Narayana Rao, S/o. Late K- Dhondu Rao, Age:51 years, R/o' Navipet 4. K. Gangahar Rao, S/o. Late K- Dhondu Rao, Age:46 years, F:l/o Navipet 5. K. Srinivas Rao, S/o. Late K. Dhondu Rao, Age:41 years, R/o. Navipet 6. Badanolla Rajamallu, Sio. Pothanna, Age:62 years, Rio. Navipet 7. Badanolla Srrsheela, Wo. Monaiah, Age:61 years, R/o Navipet 8. Badanolla Laxmi, S/o. Monaiah, Age:55 years, R/o- Navipet (Respondents Il to 8 are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANANTS 1 to 4 and 10 to'12 Appeals filed under Section 54 of L.A. Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 27 -09-2.007 passed in o.P.No.786 of 1998 on the file of the court of the I Additional District Judge at Nizamabad. These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the materi;al papers in the case and upon hearing the aiguments of Sri B.H.R.Chowdary, Advocate for the Appellants and GP FOR APPEALS for the Respondent. I & This Court doth Order and decree as foltows:

1. That the Appeals be and the same are hereby allowed, setting aside the impugned order of the Reference court and enhancing the market value of the subject acquired lands from Rs.56,3341 per acre to Rs.g4,5001 per acre; 2- rhat the appellants/claimants be and hereby are entifled to all the statutory benefits like solatium, additional market value, etc., under the Land Acquisition Act, -1894, on the enhanced market value; and

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.. //TRUE COPY// sd/- A.v.s.s.c.s.M. sARMA INT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

4."" i,

1. The I Additional District Judge at Nizamabad 2. Two CD Copies kam @x X HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 / €:? COMMON DECREE LAAS.Nos.497 & 499 of 2008 ALLOWING THESE APPEALS .,,C I