The High Court · 2025

3. Chandranna (Claimant No.4), S/o Kasimanna, Age 45 years 4. Savaramma (Claimant No.5), Wo Driver Ramulu, age55 years 5. Nadipi Narsimulu (Claimant No.8), Sio Gokaranna, Age 44 years 6. Ampanna (Claimant No.9), S/o Penchikalapad Savaranna, Age 60 years 7. Ramudu (Claimant No.10), S/o Panchikalapad Savaranna, Age45 years 8. V. Srinivas Reddy (Claimant No.18), S/o Venkat Reddy, Age50 years 9. Narsamma (Claimant No.20), Wo. Late Savaranna, Age 72 years 10.Y.Thara Veni(Claimant No.2'1), Wo Y.Thirumal Reddy, Age42 years 'I'1. Y. Venkatram Reddy (Claimant No.22), S/o Thimma Reddy, Age 40 years 12.Y. Thirumal Reddy (Claimant No.f3), S/o Thimma Reddy, Age 48 years. All are O_cc Agriculture, R/o Ryalampad village, Dharoor Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. (Respondent No. 2 to12 are not necessary parties) ...Respondents/Claimants Counsel for the Appellant : Sri P.Animi Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 12 The Court made the following : JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMAIA DEVI EADA LAAS.No.82 OF 2 024 IUDGMENT: (t',, rto,'t t S" 1,.,r,," .lbtutatrrt Knntr !tttt/t) Vhen the matter is raken up for hearing, leamed counse I appearing for the appellants had submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this Coun in LAAS.No.5 6 of 2024, darcd 27 .01.2025. Leamed Government Pleader appearing for the respondents does not dispute the said fact. Following the judgment dated 27.01.2025 in LAAS.No.55 of 2024 and for reasons alike, this Appeal is also disposed of. The claimants-appellants are entitled for enhancement of 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. However, it is made clear that the claimanrs-appellants are not entitled to claim interest for the delay period in preferring the appeal. No costs. \ =\\ 2 -! Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTIO FFICER To,

1. The Land Acquisition officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, JLIP Gadwal, ' Jogulamba Gadwal District.

2. One CC to Sri P.Animi Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP For Appeals ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies Svs/PSLw a.i's .$, \ HIGH COURT DATED:1110412025 ORDER LAAS.No.82 of 2024 _:::::.::- .-; i: rtl[: 3 2s mJUL + ' ')j -- \> 7z $)): I DISPOSING OF THE LAAS WITH OUT COSTS. aAa. V ^t"\'< a \ THE HON'BLE SRIIUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVITI THE H'N,BLE SMT.,,f#?,,RUMALA DE,I EADA L.A.A. S.No .56 0F 2024 IUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri /ustice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) When 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 conunon judgment, dated 27.09.2022, renderua Uy iii, Court in L.A.A.S.No. 2 of 2016 and batch' whereby this Court has enhanced the market varue of the land acquired therein by two more times (1+2) than the value fixed by the Land Acquisition officer with a, consequential benefits as stipulated under the amended Land Acquisition Act, by following the judgment, dated 15.09.2022, rendered by this Court in L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2076. Learned counsel had contended that aggrieved by the very same direction given in other simirar batch of appeals, the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) carried the matter to the Honourable Supreme Court by filing s'L'P'(civil)'No'2g925 of 2024 and the Honourabre supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the same uide order, dated, 2 AKS,J & E"TD,J L.A.A.S.No.56 of 2024

17.09.2024. In view of the same, the present appeal is also liable to be disposed 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. J Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer 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 AXS,J & E-TD,J L.A.A.S-No.56 of 2024 issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the cornmon judgmen! dated 27.09.2022, rendered by this Court in L.A.A.S.No.2 of 2016 and batch, whereby this Court has enhernced 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.2g925 of 2024, dated 17.09.2024. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present appeal in terms of the common judgment, dated 27.09.2022, rendered by this Court in L.A.A.S.No.2 of 2076 and batch. 5 IS Accordinglp the appeal disposed of following the corunon judgmenf dated 27.09.2022, rend.ered by this Court in L.A.A.S.No.2 of 2016 and 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-AA.S.No.56 of 2024 the Land AcquisiLion 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 closed. ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, I TIRUMALA DEVI EAD& I Date:27.01.2025. Note: Registry is directed to annex a copy of the corrunon judgment, dated 27.09.2022, rendered by this Court in L.A.A.S.No.2 of 201.6 and batch, to this judgment. B/O.MD