The High Court · 2025

'18. Smt. Jambulamma, Wo. Late Golla Bakanna, R/o. Madhavaswamy Nagar Village of Kollapur Mandal, [Vlahaboobnagar District. 'l9.Balaswamy, S/o. Late Golla Bakanna, R/o. Madhavaswamy Nagar Village of Kollapur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

20.Roshanna, S/o. Late Golla Bakanna, R/o. Madhavaswamy Nagar Village of Kollapur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. 21 .Balaiah, S/o. Late Golla Bakanna, R/o. Madhavaswamy Nagar Village of Kollapur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

22. Chettemma, W/o. Late Pentaiah, R/o. Madhavaswamy Nagar Village of Kollapur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar Diskict.

23. Balamma, Wo.Sanjanna, Rio. lVladhavaswamy Nagar Village of Kollapur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

24. Pullaiah, S/o. Late Pedda Bichanna, R/o. Madhavaswamy Nagar Village of Kollapur tt/andal, Mahaboobnagar District.

25. Pullamma, Wo. Balaswamy, R/o. Madhavaswamy Nagar Village of Kollapur lVlandal, [/lahaboobnagar District.

26. Smt. Golla Bichamma, Wo. Late Golla Pedda Kistanna, R/o. [t/ladhavaswamy Nagar Village of Kollapur [t/landal, Mahaboobnagar District.

27.Golla Ramaswamy, S/o. Late Golla Pedda Kistanna, R/o. Madhavaswamy Nagar Village of Kollapur lrlandal, Mahaboobnagar District. AND The LAO., Reh., SSP., Wanaparthy, Now merged with PJP, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District. ...Appellants/Claimant ...RespondenURespondent Counsel for the Appellants : SRI V MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR APPEALS The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT ,) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABIIINAND KUMAR SHAVITI AND HON,BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A. S.No.396 of 2OO9 JUDGMENT: ftter Hon'ble Smt- Justice nrumala Deui Eada) This appeal, under Section 54 of the [,and Acquisition Act, 1894, (for shortthe ActJ is preferred by the appellants - claimants, aggrieved by the order ald decree dated l5'12'2OO7 passed in O.P.No.309 of 1996 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference CourtJ'

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 lands situated in the limits of Manchalakatta Village of Kollapur Mandal were acquired for formation of approach road from Kollapur to Somasila Village. A draft notification under Section a(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette No.S-A, dated 28.O2.1975' After following the procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award No.29 175, dated 15.11.1975 by granting compensation to the acquired dry lands at Rs-2,25O1- per acre' Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have filed a petition seeking enhancement to n 2 AKS,I & EID,J LAAs No.396 2009 an extent of Rs. 15,000/- per acre and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the reference Court,

4. The reference Court has framed the following points for consideration Whether the Auard.passed bg the Land Acquisition Officer is not reasonable and adequqte? Whether the claimants are entitled to get enhanced compensqtion, if so, at uhat rate? To uthat retief " 2 3

5. On behalf of the claimants, PWs I atd 2 were examined and Ex.A 1 was marked. On behalf of the respondents. RW 1 was examined and Ex.Bl r,vas marked.

6. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to the extent of Rs.4,OOO/- per acre- Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the claimants seeking further enhancement.

7. Heard the submissions of Sri V.Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the reference Court has erred in passing the award and that the acquired lands are fertile land with black cotton soil having permanent irrigation facility and that the claimalts used to earn \ :) 3 A(S,J & ETD.J I-AAS No.396_2009 good income and that the lands under acqr'risition are similar in nature to the land acquired under Ex.A1 and that the reference Court has erred in not adopting the rates that are granted under Ex.A 1 . He further argued that under Ex.A 1 , al amount of Rs.7,000/- per acre was granted by the tearned Judge but having considered the said exhibit, the reference Court has restricted its award only to Rs.4,000/- per acre for no reason and therefore, prayed to set aside the award and enhance the compensation to that of Rs.7,000/- per acre by allowing this appeal.

9. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, has argued that the purpose for which the iand was acquired under Ex.Al is different from that of the present acquisition and that the reference Court was right in granting Rs.a,OOO/- per acre, therefore, he prayed to dismiss the appeal and uphold the order and decree of the reference Court.

10. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1 2 Wtrether tlle clairnalts are entitled for enhancement of compensation? Whether the order arrd decree of the reference Court need any interference?

3. to what relieP : ,1 l ,I {r 4 .A(S,I & EID,J LAAS No.396 2009

11. POINT NO.1: a) In the case on hald, the land that was acquired for the purpose of approach road from Kollapur to Somasila Viliage, is at Manchalakatta village of Kollapur Mandal. b) The claimants relied upon Ex.A1 to prove that their lands fetch more value than that is awarded by the Land Acquisition Ofhcer. A perusal of Ex.Al reveals that the land to an extent of 4c.28-22 % guntas in several survey numbers was acquired by the Government in the limits of Manchalakatta Village of Kollapur Mandal, under submergence of the back water of Srisailam Hydro Electric Project and in the said case, the Land Acquisition Ofhcer has passed the award by granting compensation of Rs.2,25O/- per acre for the lands under Category-I, Rs. 195O/ - per acre for Category-ll and Rs.550/- per acre for Category-lll respectively. Having not satisfied with the said award, reference was made to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool and in the said reference vide O.P.Nos.282 of 1996 and 2ZO of 1996, the Senior Civil Judge has passed an order dated 2I.O3.2006, wherein it has granted compensation @ Rs.7,000/- per acre. c) In the present case, the evidence of PW1 reveals that the lands at Manchalakatta village were acquired earlier for the purpose bf Srisailam project and that aggrieved by the award, they AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.396 2009 have approached the Court, wherein, the Court has enhalced the arnount to Rs.7,OOO/- per acre and that aggrieved by the said award, the respondent has hled an appeal before the High Court and the High Court has dismissed the said appeals conhrming the award passed by the reference Court. He has iurther stated that the lands are situated on the left bank of river Krishna and have fertile black cotton soils and that every year they raise commercial crops like Tobacco, Cotton, Chilies and Groundnut, which fetch good income. He further stated before the reference Court that the award passed for the lands covered in O.p.No.282 of 1996 and in the present case arise out of the same proceedings i.e. Award No.29 of 1975 and that the acquired lards in the present proceedings and the iands in O.P.No.282 of 1996 are similar in fertility, yield and market value and that they fall adjacent to each other. d) PW2 is the claimant in O.P.No.282 oI 1996, his evidence reveals that his land was acquired for Srisailam project and that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced by the reference Court to Rs.7,OOO/- per acre for dry lalds in survey No. 171 and 172 situated at Manchalakatta village and tJlat the respondent has not preferred any appeal in O.p.No.2g2 of 1996, as such, the orders of the reference Court have become hnal. He also { I i I 6 AKS,J & ETD,I LAAS No.396 2009 ( stated that the lands under both the acquisition proceedings are adjacent to each other and they pertain to award No.29 of 1975 dated 15. 1 1.1975. e) RWl is the Special Deputy Collector, LA Unit RIP, Gadwal. The Land Acquisition Officer has relied on twenty three sale instances from Manchalakatta village of Kollapur Mandal and has rejected some sale instances on the ground that they are not comparable sales and some are far away from the lands ulder acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer has not ascertained the actual market vaiue of the lands in the vicinity and has not supported his award wilh any acceptable and convincing evidence. However, it is noticed that the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award No.29 of 1975 dated 15.11.1975 covering the lands under acquisition for the Srisailam Project and also the approach road from Kollapur to Somasila Village ald it is also elicited through the evidence on record that both the villages fall adjacent to each other and thev have fertile black soils and has awarded Rs.2,250/- per acre for dry lands in the present case. On reference, the Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool has enhanced the value in O.P.No.282 of 1996 to the extent of Rs.7,000/- per acre but in the present case i.e. in O.P.No.309 of 1996, the reference Court has awarded only Rs.4OO0/- per acre, which is not I I 7 AKs,J & ETD,J LAAS No.396 2009 proper. When the iands are similar in fertility and the Lald Acquisition Officer has passed the award under the same proceedings, the reference Court ought not to have passed a differential amount, therefore, it is held that the compensation has to be enhanced to the extent of Rs.7,OOO/- per acre in the present case also. Though, the respondent counsei has argued that the purpose for acquisition is different, it does not have aly bearing on the fact that the land acquired were of similar nature and aiso that they were very close to each other. Considering the facts on record, this Court holds that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation to Rs.7,00Ol- per acre- Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

12. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned hnding arrived at Point No.1, this Court holds that the Reference Court's order and decree need interference and therefore, it is held that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation at Rs.7,000/ - per acre.

13. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order and decree dated 15.12.2007 passed in O.P.No.3O9 of 1996 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool are hereby set aside and accordingly, the compensation awarded by the reference Court I l I I I AKS,J & EID,.] IAAS No.396 2009 f') is enhanced from Rs.4,OOO/- to that of Rs.7,OOO/- per acre. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// ,.SD/. K. SRINIVASA RAO OINT REGISTRAR i\ J SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judoe Nagarkurnool (With records, if any) ? 9n" CC to Sri V Marionar RLo. Advocaie fOpUCl 3. Two CCs to Gp FoR AePEALS Hig;a;J; f*irie state of Tetangana at 4. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] - ADK/gh \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 JUDGMENT LAAS.No.396 of 2009 t4 o tj'. +", ;,1 t.i s s\ : l\ v o !L, .) ljoi\r1 PARTLY ALLOWING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS \L