The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri P. Animi Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR APPEALS The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMTJUSTICE TIRUMAI-A DEVI EADA L.A.A.S. No.104 OF 2024 IUDGMENTi r'i, tto,ttht*.,,c ,,,r',. 1ok ,,, \t.t,,l \X/hen the rnafter is hken up for hearing, leamed counsel appearing for the appellans had informed this Coun that the issue raised in ths Appeal is squarely covered by the j,"rdgment, dated

27.01.2025, passed by this C-oun in L.AAS.No.49 of 2024. Therefore, similar order be passed in this appeal also. Leamed corlnsel had funher contended thar LAAS No.49 of 2024 was disposed of by relying on a Division Bench judgment of this C-oun in L.AAS.No.125 of 2a$ and batch, dated 27.09.2022, whereby the market value of the land acquired therein was enhanced by two more times than the value fixed by the Land Acquisidon Officer with all consequential benefits, however, for the ,JeLay period in preferring the appeals, the claimants are not entided for any rnterest. 2 7- Leamed counsel for the appellants had funher contended that the judgment, dated27.09.2022 passed in L.AAS.No.l25 of 2015 and batch was also confirmed by the Apex C-ourt in S.L.P.(Gvil)No.28925 of 2024, darcd 17.09.2024. Therefore, the present appeal can also be disposed of in terms of the judgment, darcd27.Ol.2O25 passed in L.AAS.No.49 of 2024.

5. Leamed Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- Land Acquisition Officer had contended that the purpose of acquiring lands of appellants is for Ryalampadu Balancing Reservoir under Jawahar Lift Irrigation Proiect and Priyadarshi Jurala Project and G.O.lvk.No.234, dated 15-10-1993 and G.O.lvfs.No.291, dated 05.08.1982 are not applicable to the said irrigation projecs. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

4. Flaving considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the Division Bench of this C-oun in L.AAS.No.2 ol 2016, dated 27.09.2a22 and L.AAS.No.4 of 2016, dared 15.09.2022 held that the said 3 G.Os. are applicable for all the Irrigation Projects. though the said G.G. were issued specifically for Srisailam Hfro Power Projects. L.AAS.No.125 of 201,5 and batch, dated )_7.09.2022 and L.AAS.No.4 of 2016, dated 15.09.2 022 were allowed and the market value was enhanced byrwo more rimes than the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the order, dated

27.09.2022, in L.AAS.No.L2S of 2015 arrd batch, the State has carried the maner to the Apex Coun by filing S.L.p.(CiviI).No. 28925 of 2024 and the Apex Coun uide order, dated 17.09.2024, I I confirmed the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in L.AAS.No.125 of 2015 and batch. Therefore, the present appeal can also be disposed of in terms of the judgment, dated 27 .09 .2022, passed in L.AAS.No.125 of 2OI5 and batch. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by following the judgment, dated 2l .09.2022, passed in L.AAS.No .125 of ZOl5 and batch, and the market value is enhanced bytwo more times (1 +2) than the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer with all consequential benefits. However, the appellants are nor entitled for 4 interest forthe delayperiod in preferring the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscelianeous Petitions, if any, pending in these appeal shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC N OFFICER The Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal. One CC to Sri P. Animi Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl Two CCs to Gp FOR APPEALS Hign Cturt foi the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] To, 1 2 3 4 Two CD Copies Kami PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1410712025 \ JUDGMENT LAAS.No.104 of 2024 rJ a_) (f * t;Hi, sl I I itP \ J../i ,5 ..^1i,,"/ . \nS,r -,' 'i.:>'' i; -:- . ^. . 't-;"'- DISPOSING OF THE LAAS l THE HON'BLE.IUSTICE G. SRI DEVI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRTYADARSINI L.A.A.S.Nos.125, L44, 27O and 356 of 2015. 62 and 68 of 2O2L COMMON JUDGMENT : (per Justice G. Sri Devi) The lls in this batch of Appeals preferred by the claimants pertain to common acquisition proceedings 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, learned Assistalt Government Pleader for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 3- The present acquisition was for the purpose of submergence of Priyadarshini Joorala Project/ancillary projects under Priyadarshini Joorala Project. This Court uide judgrnent, dated

15.09.2022 has a-lready elaborately arralysed the evidence and considered the identical issue raised in these appeals in L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2076. 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 2076, wherein this Court has allowed the appea-l enhancing the market value by two more ) times (1+2) than the value fixed by the L.A.O. u,ith all other \ consequential benefits as stipulated under the amended Act.

4. Therefore, following the judgment passed by this Court in L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2016, dated 15.09.2022 ard for the reasons 'stated therein, ajl these appeals stand disposed of by enhancing the market value of the acquired Iald by two more times (1+2) than the value hxed by the L.A.O. with all other consequential bene{its as stipulated under the amended Act. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, sha1l stand closed. JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI JUSTICE M.G. PRTYADARSINI 27 .O9.2022 gkv/tsr Note: Office to appcnd a copy of the judgmcnt in L.A.A-S.No.4 of 2Ot6 with the present judgment. B/o gkv/ tsr [ 3445 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.No: 104 OF 2024 Between: 'l . K. Mahananda Reddy, S/o. K. Laxmi Reddy, Age. 50 years, Occ. Agriculture' R/o Ryalampad village, Dharoor Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District

2. K. Manikya Reddy, Sio. K. Laxmi Reddy, Age.45 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Ryalampad village, Dharoor Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal Drstrict

3. K. Suryakantha Reddy, S/o. K. Laxmi Reddy, Age. 38-years, Occ.. Agriculture, R/o Rialampad village, Dharoor Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District

4. K. Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Vema Reddy, Age. 60 years, Occ. Agriculture' R/o Ryalampad village,'Dharoor Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. 5- Chittem Narsamma, Wo. Kurmi Reddy, Age.60 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Ryalampad village, Dharoor Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. ...Appella nts/C la imants No.1 to 5 AND The Land Acquisition officer-cum-special Deputy Collector (LA), JLIP Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. Respondents/Respondents Appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act of 1894 aggrieved by the order dated 26-02-2016 passed in O.P.No.31 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Gadwall 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 Sri P. Animi Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and GP FOR APPEALS Appeared for Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the appeal be and hereby is allowed by following the judgment, dated 27-09-2022, passed in L.A.AS.No.125 of 2015 and batch;

2. That the market varue be and hereby is enhanced by, two more times (1+2) than the value fixed by the Land Acquisition officer with all consequential benefits;

3. That the appellants be and hereby are not entifled for interest for the delay period 3047 days in preferring the appeal; and

4. That there shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// To, 1 2 The Senior Civit Judge at Gadwal Two CD Copies Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTI FICERm, HIGH COURT DATED:1410712025 DECREE LAAS.No.104 ot 2024 DISPOSING OF THE LAAS 4

9.lq