The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri S. Venkateshwar Reddy Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: Gp FOR APPEALS The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT.IUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No.73 oF 2024 IUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) \Alhen the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellants has informed the Court that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the corunon judgment, dated 27.09-2022, rcnd.ered by this Court in L.A.A.s.No.2 of 2076 and batch, whereby this Court has enhanced the market value of the land acquired therein by two more times (1+2) than the varue fixed by the Land Acquisition officer with all consequential benefits as stipulated under the amended Land Acquisition Act, by following the judgment, dated 75.09.2022, rendered by this Court in L.A.A.s.No.4 of 2076. Learned counser had contended that aggrieved by the very same direction given in other similar batch of appeals, the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) carried the matter to the Honourable Supreme Court by filing * S.L.P.(Civil).No.28925 of 2024 and the Honourable Supreme 2 AKS,J & ETD,J L.A.A.S.No 73 of 2024 Court was pleased to dismiss the same aide ordet, dated

77.09.2024. In view of the same, the present appeal is also liable to be disposecl of by enhancing the market value of the subject land by two more times (1+2) than the value fixed by the Land Acquisition officer with all consequential benefits as stipulated under the amended Land Acquisition Act.

2. Further, learned counsel for the appellants had fairly conceded that the appeal is filed with a delay and therefore, the appellants are not entitled to interest for the delay period in preferring the appeal. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the appeal to that effect.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) did not dispute the said fact, but, however, sought time to get instructions' 4 This Court, having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the 3 AKS,J & ETD'J L.A.A.S.No.73 of 2024 issue raised in the Present appeal is squarely covered by the common judgment, daled'27'09'2022' rcndered by this Court in L.A.A.S.No.Z of 2076 and batch' whereby this Court has enhanced the market value of the land acquired therein by two more times (1+2) than the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer with all consequential benefits as stipulated under the amended Land Acquisition Act' Further' similar direction given in other batch of appeals was also confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in S'L'P'(Civil)'No'28925 of 2024' dated I 17.09.2024. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present appeal in terms of the colrunon judgment' dated 27.09.2022, rendered by this Court in L'A'A'S'No'2 of 2076 and I batch.

5. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of following the conunon iudgment, d'ated 27'09'2022' tendered by this Court in L.A.A.S.No. 2 of 2l1,6and batch by enhancing the market value of the subject land by two more times (1+2) than the value fixed by 4 AKS,J & ETD,J L.A.A.S.No.73 or 2024 the Land Acquisition officer with all consequential benefits as stipulated under the amended Land Acquisition Act. However, it is made clear that the appellants are not entitled to claim interest for the delay period in preferring the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand elosed Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR T //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 The Additional Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal One CC to Sri S. Venkateshwar Reddy Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR APPEALS ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies )' kam/PSL ! \ w f w HIGH COURT DATED:2710112025 JUDGMENT LAAS.No.73 of 2024 .':'::. lrll tr i; (' r$1 \t\ f.i t' ;) DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI L.A.A.S. Nos.2 8 10 12 to 18 tt2 t2a L64 166 t67. 170. 172. t73. 174. 176. 177. 178. 180 ta2 183 187. 188, 190. r9r. L92. t93, r94, 195, 199.207.209. 2LO.2Lt.215.216.21A, 220. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 230 232 233 234 235 237 239 242 244 245 246 247.249, 250,254,25,6, 257. 259. 26L, 264. 266, 27 t, 272.273.274 281. 285. 307. 309. 310. 311 313 314. 315.31a. 319 . 320. 32L. 322. 326, 327, 328. 329.330. 331 332 333 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 344 345.346. 348. 349.350.356. 357. 358, 360.361. 362. 363 364 368 370 372 373 374 3a7 388 390 391 396, 399, 4o,4,407,434, 440, 441, 443, 479, 4AO, 444,, 488.489.490 . 491. 509. 510. 513, 515. 516. 519. 521. 5.22 523 527 528 533 54O & 542 of2016 L.A.A.S.Nos.5 . 10.23.27.36.37,40, 41.42 48.50. 55.60.74.75.81 to 97.99to 124. 127 to 16l. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 171 to 188, 192.20t.207. 209 2ta 219 233 556 557 560 561 562 574 580 582.583,585 . 602. 603. 613.62 1 & 630 of2OlTz L.A.A.S.Nos.55 56 6() 6t 62 64 65 66 67 68 69 84. 85. tol. lO3 1 o,4. 1o7.108. 109. 110 Lt2 114. 116 t!7 118 119 r20 t2t 122 t24 t2s 129 137 2 L62, t64,165, 1 66, 179. 18(). 183, 184, 185, 190. 194, 197, 198,1 99, 2oo.20L. 2o.2. 205. 206. 207. 229. 232, 240 241 245 247 244 249 252 25,4 255 2s6 257 264.296,308.309.3 12 & 314 of 2018: L.A.A.S.Nos.37 of 2019; L.A.A.S.N os.33. 34, 35,36, 38, 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 51 52 53&64 of 2O2l COMMON JUD GMENT: Qter Justite G. Si Deut) The lis in this batch of Appeals, preferred by the claimants, pertain to common acquisition p.oceedings and therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard learned counsel for the claimants and Sri D.Kiran, iearned Assistant Government pleader for the responden t.

3. Both the counsel submit that the present acquisition was for the purpose of Rajeev Lift Irrigation Scheme, Phase-II, pebbair, which is ancillary project of Priyadarshini Joorala project and that similar matter 3 has already been decided by this Court in L.A'A'S'No'4 of 2016 and therefore, these appeals can also be disposed of in similar lines. This Court uide judgment, dated 15.09.2022 has already elaborately analysed the evidence and considered the identical issue raised in these appea-Is in L.A.A,S.No.4 of 2016. Both the counsel have not disputed the factum of commonality of the evidence. and the issue in these appeals and in L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2016, wherein this Court has allowed the appeal enhancing the market value by two more times (1+2) than the value fixed by the L'A-O' with all other consequential benefits as stipulated under the amended Act.

4. Therefore, fottowing the judgment passed by this Court in L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2016, dated 15.09.2022 and for the reasons stated therein, all these appeals stand disposed of by enhancing the market value of the acquired land by two more times (1+2) than the value fixed by the L.A.O. with alt other consequential 4 benefits as stipulated under the amended Act. However, it is made clear that the claimant(s) is/are not entitled to claim interest for the delay period in preferring the appeal as specifically ordered by this Court while condoning the delay. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. WSTICE G. SRI DEVI JUSTICE M.G. PRTYN)ARSINI

27.09.2022 gkv/tsr Note: Offrce to append a copy of the judgment in L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2076 with the present judgment. B/o gkv/tsr