The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further Proceedings and the decree and Judgment dt. 11-02-2010 in OP.No.95/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy pending disposal of the above Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant : GP for Appeals Counsel for the Respondents : Sri S Venkateshwar Reddy The Court delivered the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ATHINAND KUMI. t SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMTJUSTICE TIRUMALADE\ I EADA I-AAS.No.483 of 2012 MENT : lPtr I l,n'b.te.lr'/ir .lbhinanl Krntur 5hn,ilt) \When the matter is taken up for ht r ring, le,rmed Govemment Pleader appearing for the appellant rad subnritted \ \ that the issue inrrolved in this appeal is squarel;' : rvered by the corrrrnon judgment of this Court in LAAS.No.4.' of 2012 and batch, dated 2A.09.2022, and same order may bc rassed il this appeal also. Leamed counsel appearing for the respon lent-claimant does not dispute the said fact. In view of the same and following t te colrunon judgment dated 20.09.2022 n L.AAS.No.477 i 2012, dte Appeal is allowed in part confirming the market \'l ue enhanced by the Reference C.ourt from RS.25,OOO/- to R'.73,150/- per acrc, and seming.aside the amount of Rs.3,OOO/- 1't r acre for 13 2 Y*1 - yean granted by the Reference Cpurt towards crop damages. However, the claimant is entitled for additional interest at 1.5o/o from the date of taking over of actual possession till the date of publication of notification under Section a (1) of the Act and the claimant is also entitled for all other srarutory benefis as per the amended Act. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/.I.NAGA LAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRAR /iL \_-,/ SECTION OFFICER I To, 1 2 J 4 DL/SA The Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy. (With records) Two CCs to the GP for Appeals, State of Telangana, High Court Buildings, at Hyderabad (OUT) One CC to Sri S Venkateshwar Reddy Advocate IOPUCI Two CD Copies (Along with a copy of Common Judgment, dt 2010912022 in I AA/AS No.477112 and Batch) s .- \ -- **r a.U ( I:D ;A o o 2 i -rt : r l^;- -u ],l * q -* -:') ' HIGH COURT OATED:1610712025 JUDGMENT LAAS.No.483 ot 2012 APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN PART k THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRTYADARSINI L.A.A.S.Nos.477 478 481 and 482 of 2Ol2 COMMON JUDGMENT : (per Justice G. Sri Devi) The lis in this batch of Appeals preferred by the Land Acqursition Ofhcer pertain to common acquisition proceedings and therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard Sri D.Kiran, Iearned Assistant Governmcnt Pleacler for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the ma reria I available on record.

3. For formation of approach road from Chinnambavi to Veltoor village, the lands of the claimants, to an extent of Ac.2.33 guntas, situated at Koppunoor village of Deepangandla Mandal, were acquired by the Government by issuing draft notification under Section 4 (l) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), daled 28.06.2OO2. However, possession of the land was acquired much prior to the notification i-e-, on 29.05.1989. After conducting due enquiry, the L.A.O. has passed an award on 26.Oa.2OOS fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.25,000/ per acre. Dissatisfied with the saicl fixation by the L.A.O., claiming the market value at Rs.80,OOO/ pcr acre, the claimants have sought for reference under Section 18 of the , Act to the cir.il Cotrrt. On such reference, the lear ld Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, by the impugned commor order, dated l't .O2.2OlO fixed the market value of the acquired lanrl et Rs-73,150/- per acre in additron to crop damages at Rs.3,000/ 1:r acre for 13 years. Challenging the saLme, the L.A.O. preferred the 1,r rsent appeals.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submi s that without there being any cogent evidence, the reference Court r rs erroneously enhanced the rnarkel value from Rs.25,000/ to Rs.7.l i5O/ per:rcre. It is contendcd that thc reference Court ought not to lave relied on Ex.Pl for the prrrpose ol enhancing the market value s nce the lzrnds therein are tlilfercnt from that of the acquired lands anc] hc value fixed therein cannot be applied to the acquired land. It is fi,rrt rer <:orrtended that inasmuch as thc very acquisition is for the purpos( , f formation of approach road. the refercnce Court errcd in awarding c'rt I damages for 13 ycars at Rs.3,000/ p(-'r annum.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the clairr tnts submits that the acquired lands were being irrigated from wal: drawn from Chinnamaroor lilt irrigation project and the claimants rsed to rtrise commercial crops su<--h as paddy, cotton, tobacco, grolur nut etc. and used to get net income of Rs.15,000 f - per acre per 1 rnum. Il is further contendcd that as regards the earlier acquisitior) I the lands in the same village, the relercnce Court has hxed the markr t valuc for thc 3 dry lands at Rs.73,150/- per acre as can be seen from Ex-P1 and therefore, basing on Ex.P1, the reference Court has rightly awarded the compensation. It is lastly contended that inasmuch as the possession o[ the land was taken way back on 29.05.1989 and as the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was on 28.O6.2002, since thcre is a gap of 13 years, the reference Court has rightly awarded crop damages at Rs.3,0OO/- per acre for these I3 years.

6. While enhancing the market value, basing on Ex.P1, the reference Court at para No,11 of the impugned order, has observcd as u nde r: " I 1. ... There utas acqu[sition of Lands in the uery same uillage [.e., Koppunoor uillage earlier bg the Goue rnment in Autard No.3/ 2004. P.W.2 is one of the claimants in the said autard. The claimants in Awarcl No.3 of 2OOa rekned the matter to this court for enhancement of the market ualue, and the said reference utas made bg this Court in judgment datect O LO7.2OO9 in O.P.No.4 l4 of 2OO8 and batch. P.W.2 deposed that the lands couered under Ex.P 1 judgment are similar in fertilitg and crop pattern to the lands couered in the present case on hand. Euen P.W.I olso deposed the same facts. Though R.W. 1 stated that opinion sought from the High Court for prepaing appeal against the judgment under Ex.P1 and there is lapse of six months till notu the Couernment, did not prefer appeaL this Court hauing once fxed the market ualue of the acquired lands in Koppunur uillage under Ex.Pl, this Court does not hesitate to base its decision on Ex.Pl judgment. In this connection this Courl relies upon a decision I reported in 2OO3 (1) 1O Supreme Court cases 529 /. thim Singh and others u. State of Hargana and another) in tuhul it is hetd that uhen the compensation alreadg fxed by the Hig1t, )ouft in earlier proceedinqs and u.then tn one such proceedings ;ltpreme Court alreadg approued the rate Jixed, then the best n t thod uould be look at the earlicr .Ttdgments ancl atuards. As per I r pl this Court fixed the market ualue for the drg lands is at Rs.7 ! I5O/-. Hence this Court is inclined to fix the market ualue at i;.73.150/ per acre for dry lands euen in the present case on hanrl "

7. Thus, the reasoning adopted by the reference (( urt in relying on Ex.Pl for enhancing the market value of the acqui ed land is in consonance with thc principles cstablished by law anr _herefore, the hxatron of the market value by the referencc CoL -t needs no interference. I{owever, the possession of the land I as taken on

29.O5.19a9 and rvhereas the notification ',va s issuecl on,_ t .06.2OO2. ln the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in R.L.Jain D) bg LRs u. DDA and othersl and Tahera Khotoorr. and. other.: u. Reuenue Divisional Ofiicer2 , the clarmanr(s) is/are entitled to 11e benefit of l5% additionat interest from the date of taking possessi I r of thc land till the date of publication of the preliminary notification .he said f;rct has not been disputed by the learned Assistant Governnrt I t pleader for Appeals. Such being thc case, since this Court is ir-rcli t:d to grant addition:rl intcrest at 15'2, per annum from the date of 1,< s56""1or, , ,, the date of notification under Section 4 (l) of the Act, we ar . of the view I (2004) 4 scc 79 12or+; r: scc 6r: 2 5 that there is no need to award crop damages at Rs.3,OO0/ per acre for 13 years.

8. For the foregoing reasons, while confirming the market value enhanced by the reference Court from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.73,150/- per acre in respect of the acquired land, the amount of Rs.3,OO0/ per acre for 13 years granted by the reference Court towards crop damages is hereby set aside- However, claimant(s) is/are entitled for additional interest at 15%, from the date of taking over of actual possession till the date of publication ol notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Further, the claimant(s) is/are also entitled for all other statutory benehts as per thc amended Act.

9. Accordingly, all the appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No costs. Miscellaneous petrtions, if any, shail stand closed JTISTICE G. SRI DEVI JUSTICE M.G. PRTYADARSINI

20.o9 .2022 gkv/ tsr IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND T\A/ENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINANO KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA LAND ACOUISITION APPEAL SUIT NO: 183 OF 20'12 Between: The Land Acquisitbn Offrcer, Special Deputy Collector, L.A Unit, PJP Gadwal' Mahabubnagar District ...AppellanUReferrin g Officer AND Telugu Jogu Narsimha, S/o Pullaiah, Agriculture, R/o Koppunur Village, Weepangandla Mandal. ...RespondenUClaimant Appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act'l894 against the Judgment and Decree dated 11.o2.20'10 in o.P.No. 95 0f 2009 0n the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge at WanaParthY. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of GP for Appeals, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri S Venkateshwar Reddy, Mvocate for the Respondent This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

1. That the appeal be and hereby is allowed in part confirming the market value enhanced by the Reference Court from Rs. 25,0001- to Rs. 73,150/- per acre; 2. That the Amount of Rs. 3,0001 per acre for 13 years granted by the Reference Court towards crop damages, be and hereby is set aside;

3. That the claimant be and hereby is entitled for additiorr rl interest at 15% from the date of taking over of actual possession till th€ iate of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the clain ant is also entitled for all other statutory benefits as per the amended Act, 4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal I d/-I.NAGA LAKSHMI JOTNT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy. 2. One CC to Sri S Venkateshwar Reddy, Advocate tOF UCI 3. Two CD Copies DUSAg HIGH COURT DATED:16/07/2025 DECREE LAAS.No.483 of 20'12 APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN PART \ €