The High Court · 2025

...RespondenUplaintiff lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section.5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited. in gupport of tfre ietriionl the High i"r.t rnr, O" pleased to condone the deray, if any in rirng tfie ln petition in n"iil; ;;% , 20O4 due to the death ofthe ResponAent ruo.i -,/ lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the abatement of the Appeal caused to the death of Respondent No.1 in A.S No.264912004. lA NO: 3 OF 2022 Petition under order 22 Rule 4 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to bring the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein as the Lergal Representatives of the Respondent No.1 in A.S.No.2649 of 2004. Counsel for the Appellants : GP for Appeals Counsel for the Respondents : Sri S Lakshma Reddy The Court delivered the following: --J HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JI,'STICD TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT No.2649 of 2OO4 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Smt. Justtce Tirumola Deui Ead.a) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short'the ActJ is preferred by the appellants, aggrieved by the judgmenr and decree dated 21.tO.2OO2 padsed in O.S.No.4l of 1996 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda (hereinafter referrcd to as 'the trial CourtJ.

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

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that originally he is the ovrner and possessor of Ac.O2_OO g.untas of land in survey No. 1 132 at Damaracherla village, out o[ which the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) - defendant No.S has acquired Ac.O-29t/z guntas of land, for the formation and construction of broadguage railway line from Bibinagar to Nadikudi vide draft notification No.G.O.Rt.No .7361T.R & B, dated 25.07.t986 and, it was issued in Gazette on 31.03. 1987. His grievance is that the Government has paid him only to an exte nt of Ac.O- I 1 guntas in spite of the entire extent of Ac.O-29t/z guntas. Though he ./ 2 ,\KS,] & ETD,] As 2649-2004 represented to the Government about the balance ol compensation to be paid, the Government failed to consider the sarrle Thus' the plaintiff has issued a tegal notice and that the RDO hLas replied to the said notice accepting the fact but denied the entitle mc nt of the plaintiff with regard to the suit property to an exten t of Ac O- 18 7z guntas of land. Thus, the plaintiff lodged a complrint with the grievance scll of rhe Chief Minister's Peshi' in spite of ivhich' he has not received any response His contentk)n is that in recent time, the land value has abnormally increased and that in view of over bridge on Krishna River being constructed thc land has acquired much more value and in view of the sarnc' hc is valuing the suit land (r! Rs.S,OOO/- per gurlta and thus' clz'i;rcd that he is entit1edtoRs.92,50o/.forbalanceofAc.O-lSlZgl-urlasandthus, has lrled the suit before the Senior Civil Judge Cour.t, Miryalguda.

4. The defendants have fi1ed written statem(rr't dcnying the averments made by the plaintiff They admitted r-hat they have acquired iand along with the other lands for formation of broadguage raihvay tine but they contended that tn'r lartd acquired was only Ac.O-11 guntas and not Ac O-29 /2 gun as as alleged by the plaintiff. They further contended that the anrount granted by the Governn-rent is justihed and that the plairrriffs contention 7 3 AKS,J & ETD,] A5 2649 2004 about recent development and the hike in price cannot be accepted. Therefore, they denied the claim of the plaintiff in toto

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following points for consideration: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of money towards the Land Compensation by way of damages, as prayed for? 2 Whether the plaintifl is entitled for 307o solatium on the suit amount? Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 4 To what relieP"

6. The said issues are re-framed for the purpose of convenlence: "1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 2 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of money towards land compensation by way of damages as prayed for? J Whether the plaintilf is entitled for 3Ooh solatium on suit amount?

4. To what relieP"

7. At the time of trial, the plaintiff got examined PWs 1 to 3 and gottnarked Exs.Al to A6. On behalf of the defendants, DWl was examined and Exs.Bl to 84 were marked. Ex.C1 was marked 4 AKS,J & ETD,I A5-2649-2004

8. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff to an extent of Ac 0- 171'z guntas @Rs.5,000/ - per gunta along with the statutory benehts. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is pr(lferred by the appellants i.e the District Collector, Government of A.P, Revenue Divisional Officer and the Executive Engint er. g. Heard the submissions of learned Governme:rt Pleader for the appellants and Sri S.Lakshma Reddy, learned ccunsel for the respondent

10. The learned Governme nt pleader for the appellants has argued that the LAO has granted just amount of compensation in the present case and that there was no necessity for the trial Court to award more compensation. There was no proof that Ac.O-29 % guntas of lancl of the plaintiff was acquired in spite of which lhe Court has granted compensation as claimed by thc ptaintiff, which is not proper. He further argued that subsequcnt hike in price cannot be considered but the trial Court has cons'dered the same and enhanced the compensation, therefore, he praycd to set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court. 7 - 5 AKS,J & ETD,] AS 2649 2004

11. The learned respondent counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the plaintitf is a poor farmer and that he lost Ac.O 29,/.2 guntas of land in acquisition and that the Government has awarded only for Ac.O- 1 1 quntas and thus, he has rightly claimed the compensation lor the balance extent of Ac.o-rgvz guntas, however, the trial Court could arrive at the decision that Ac.O-17 lz guntas is the remaining land for which the claimants have to receive compensation and also that trial Court was right in assessing the compensation (!Rs.5,O0O/_ per gunta for the acquired land, therefore, he praycd to uphold the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

12. Based on the above rival submissions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1 2 ?) Whether the compenszrtion granted by the trial Court is just and reasonable? Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court need any interference? To what relief)

13. POINT NO.1: a) 'lhe case of the plaintiff is that his land to an extent of Ac.O-29Y2 guntas was acquired in survey No.l132 by the Government lor the purpose of broacl-gauge railway line but thev 6 AKS,,] & E] D,] AS 2649 2004 have awarded compensation only to an extent of r\c.O-11 guntas and that too a very meager amount. It is his further contention that the acquired land is located near the village habitation abutting the main road and that it is suitable for r:onstruclion of houses and also that there is a Raasi Cement Facr,ory which has come up in the vicinity and an over bridge over Xrishna river is being constructed and thus, there is a high rise in ,LLe land value. b) In support of his case, he has filed trx.Al copy of 13 B certihcate issued by the MRO which shows that. plaintilf is the owner of Ac.O2-00 guntas of land in survey No.1132 and Ex.AS is the title deed. The said Ex.A 1 is not denied by the defendants Thus, his contention that he is the owner of Ac.l12-00 gunlas of land is held to be proved. Out of the said land, Ac.O-2912 guntas of land was acquired by defendant No.3, as per the pllintiff c) The purpose of acquisition is also not <lenied by the defendant. The only discrepancy is with regard to t1c extent of land that is acquired. The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff has received compensation for Ac.O- 1 1 guntas, after signing the statement without any protest and thus, ir should be taken as only Ac.O- 1 1 guntas that is acquired by tlLe LAO and their contention is that the present suit is filed as an zrfterthought in 1996 having kept quite from 1985. But it is the case of the \\ - 7 AKS,I & ETO,J AS 2649 2004 plaintiff that he has been pursuing it with the Government by making repeated representations from 1985 to 1996, it is also elicited from the noLices served on the delendants and the reply notices received from the defendants. The said fact of his ripresentation to the Government/CM peshi is also not disputed by the defendants. d) In this case, the Court has appointed an advocate commissioner and the report of the said Commissioner is marked under Ex.C1. It shows that tlie land which is occupied by railways under notihcation No.736/T, R & B, dated 25.O7.1986 covers the suit land and no objections have bcen raised by the defendants with regard to the said report of the commissioner and the Commissioner report further reveals that he has been assisted by the Mandal Revenue Inspector (MRI) and the said MRI who surveyed the land in survey No.1132 is directly under the control of defendant No.3/RDO and he has given a report saying that the land under the occupation of plaintiff at present is Ac. 1-08 guntas while the land occupied by the railways belonging to the plaintiff is Ac.O-28 % guntas, that means it supports the case of the plaintiff that the railways have occupied Ac.O-28Y2 guntas of land of the plaintiff and admittedly, they are under acquisition by defendant No.3 for the purpose of railway line. Therefore, accepting the said report which is not denied by the defendants, thc Court came to a 8 AK5,J & EID,] AS 2649 2004 conclusion that Ac.0-28 % guntas of iand was :rc:quired by the defendants. 'l'he defendants have not protested tlrc report of MRI and also that rtf the advocate commissioner. Iherefore, thc Advocate Commissioner report was considered b1 he r_rial Court and thus, it was held that Ac.0-28 72 guntas of plaintiff,s land u,as acquired by the department. It is an admitted fircL that he was paid the compensation for only Ac.O- I 1 guntas. 't hus, the trial Court has rightly come to a conclusion that f<r thc rcmzrining Ac.O 17 % guntas, the compensation has to bl paid bv thc (iovernment. e) Thus, considering all Lhe evidence on recorl :rnd [he facts and circumstances, the trial Court has come to er r:cnclusion that for the rcmaining Ac.O-1712 guntas, the compensar ion has lo be paid by the Government and has awarded a c:r;rpensation of Rs.S,OOO/- per gunta for Ac.O-l7yz guntas along with statutory benefits. Thercfore, it is held that the trial Cour r has based its dccision on sound reasoning and thus, is held to be just and rezrsonable. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned finding arrived at l)oint No. 1, this Court holds that the judgment and decree of the tr.al Court do not nccd any interlerence. 7 9 AK5,J & EID,J AS 2649 2004

15. POINT NO.3: ln the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the judgmcnt and decree daLed 2l.LO.2OO2 passed in O.S.No.41 of 1996 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY' SD/- N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER L The Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. (With records, if any) 2. One CC to Sri S. Lakshma Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies DL/gh r; tE Sl;i I^ 2 'li\J 2ffi '_) li !) \1. ;\ \ ':, HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 JUDGMENT AS.No.2649 of 2004 DISMISSING THE APPEAL J [ 3/145 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA APPEAL SUIT NO: 2649 OF 2004 Between: 'l The District Collector, Nangonda District, Nalgonda. 2. The Govt. of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary, PWD Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

3. The Revue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda Dlstrict. 4, The Executive Engineer, S.C. Railway constructions Venkatadripalem Village, Miryalaguda mandal ...Appel lants/Defendants AND Sareddy Venkat Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy R/o Damercherla Village, Nalgonda District and Mandal. ...RespondenUPIaintiff Appeal filed under Section 54 of LA Act against the Judgment and Decree daled 21.10.2002 passed in O.S.No.41 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Appellate Court and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of GP for Appeals for the Appellant and of Sri S Lakshma Reddy for the Respondent. This court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the appeal is drsmissed upholding the order and decree of the lower court. d1.21 10.2002 passed in O.S.No.41 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Miryalguda

2. f hal there shall be no order as to costs //TRUE COPY// SD/. N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR /c" :SECTION OFFICER '1 The Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District 2 One CC to Sri S Lakshma Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies To, DL HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 DECREE AS.No.2649 ol 2Q04 DISMISSING THE APPEAL \