The High Court · 2025

Counsel forthe Appellants: Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy Counsel forthe Respondent: Gp FOR APPEALS The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.NO .379 of 2013 JUD GMENT: ft)er liotl'ble SttLt Justice TirumaLq Deui Dada) 'lhis appeat, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act' 1894, (tcrr short 'the Act') is preierred by the appellants - claimants' by tl-re order ancl decree dated 22'07 2Ol3 passed in of 2OO9 by lhe learned Senior Civil '.ludge at Jangaon' aggrieved O.P.No.8 Warangal District (hereinalte r rcferre d to as 'the Reference Court')' For convcnierlcc and clarity' the parties herein are refcrred [o

2. as lhey u'ere arra)'cci bclore the reference Court'

3. Thc lacts of Lhe casc in brief are that the Land Acqulsltlon Ofliccr has acquircd an cxtenL of Ac O5-0O guntas in survey No 216 situated aL Chirakodur village lor construction of sump and pump house iiltration plant under Jangaon water supply schemc The last mocle ol public:rlion of dratt notification under Section a(1) of the Act '"r'as tnadc on 29 07-2OOS After due enquiry' the Land Acquisitionofficerhasau'ardeidRs.78,650/peracreforthe irrigatecl dry land and Rs 58'820/- per acre for dry land along lvith statutory benelits Aggrieve cl by l-he said award, the claimants have the Act, rvhich rvas made an application under Section 18 of refcrrccl to [hc Senior Civil 'iudge"Jangaon' r I 2 AKS,j & E]. LAAS No.379 2013

4. The case of the claimants is that the acquired lands have high potentiality to be uscd as house sites, as it is a fast growing tourn and is situated near Jangaon. Thcl further contended thzit the acquircd land is loca[ed near the mairt road lcadir.rg from .Jangaon to Narmetta and there are residential houscs in the said area. They further contended that lhe surrounding lands in survey Nos.2l5 and 212 of Cheetakodur village are proposed to be included ir-r the Jangaon Municipality and that the land abutting the acquired land was already converted into plots.

5. The Land Acquisition Officer has filed countcr to the said claim petition denying thc averments a.d fur[her submitted that the claimants failed to produce an_v relcvant record belore the Lancl Acquisition Olficer during the cnquiry.

6. Based on the saicl submissions, the relcrence Court has framed the following points lor consideration: I 2 Whether the clainants are entitled to the enhctrtced. compensation as prayed for and i,t so, ctt what rate? Whether the atuard of the Land Acquisitiort OfJicer is sustainable in laut and. on facts?,'

7. At the timc of lrial, the claimants got examined pWs 1 to 7 and got marked Exs.A1 to Ag_ On beh:rlf of the respondent, DW1 was examined and Exs.B 1 lo 85 u.ere marked. ,...- AKS,] & ETD,] LAAs No.379-201f J

8. Based on the evLdence on record' the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs 65'000/- per acre for dry lands pcr acre for dry-cum-rvci lands Aggrieved by and Rs. 1 ,00,0O0 / - decree, the claimants have hled the present the said order and appeal seeking further cnhancement of compcnsahon g. Heard the submtsstons ol Sri N Vasudcva Reddy' learned appellants ancl learned Government Pleader for the counsel for thc resPondent' comPensatlon

10. Learned counsel tbr rhe appeltants has submitted that the reference Court has commiLted a serious error while arriving at the He lurther argucd thal ihe acquired lands in surve'v No.216 are abulting thc survey No-39 rn'hich is in municipal limits of .Iangoan town and arc zrlready convcrted into hotlse sites and that the acquired lands h:rvc high ootential value' suitable for house sites. He furlher argureci that' thcy are very near to the main road and that they havc frled sale dceds under trxs'A2 to A4 which were proved by the evidcncc of PWs 1 to 4 and that the reference Court failcd to consider the said documcnts He further argued that the reference Court has sin'rply discarded the said rlocuments only on thc ground that the)' rclate to small extents He' therefore' prayed to consider the evr<1cncc on rccorcl ancl cnhancc the compensation bySettingasidetheo1d€'rrlfthere[erenceCourt. 4 AKS,I & rt. LAAS No 379 2011

11. The lcarned Governmcnt Plcader, on thc othcr hand, has submilled that the Land Acquisition Officer has p:rssccl thc ar,,.arcl based on the evidence, rvhile the rcference Courl has enhancecl the said compensation and that there is no need for further enhancement and he, therelore, prayed to dismiss rhc appcal.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, rhis Courl frames thc following point s lor d('lcrmination: 1 2 Whcther the claimants are cntiLlcd lor cnhancemcnt of compensation? Whether the order and decree oI thc re lcrence Court need any inlerference?

3. To what relief?

13. POINT NO. 1: a) A perusal of record reveals that trx.A2 is thc gilt clce<l bcaring document No.967 of 2OO9 dated 24.O2.2009 rl,ral cannor be considcred in the present case. The sale deeds reliccl upon b-v the claimants are under Exs.A3 to ,{6. trx.A3 is the saie dccd rl:rtcd

30.O7.2OO8 but the said document cannol be considcrecl bccanse it is subsequent to the acquisition. trx.A4 is the salc deed bearing document No.926 of 2008 dated 26.02.2008, u,hercir-r the land in surve-v No.31/A to an extent of 188.89 Square yards \r.as sold @ Rs.58O/ per square yard, for a total sale consideration of Its..l."1O,0OO/-. trx.A5 is the salc deed datcd 26.O5.2OO7. u,herein 5 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.379 2013 the lanci in survey No.210/H to an extcnt o[ 605 square yards was sold @ Rs.25O/ per square yard and thc total sale consideration is Rs.1,52,000/-. Ex.A6 is the sale deed dated Oi'O2'2OO8, rvherein rhc lar-rd in Sy.No.2O6 to an exLent ol 183 Sq yards was sold (! Rs:250/- per squarc yarcl and the total sale consideration is Rs.46,0OO/-. Since, trxs.A4 to Ab pcrtain to the relevant period of acquisition, they can be consiclercd. The sale lransaction under Ex.A4 is not reflected in the salcs s[atistics under Ex B 1, while the sale transactions undcr Exs A5 ancl A6 are rcflectcd at Sl'Nos'3O and 55. b) A perusal of the trxs A5 atrd A6 revcals that the lands under the said sale deeds '*'ere sold (q Rs 25O/' per square yard However, the said transactions are for house pklts klcated in differenL survey numbers of Jangaon, whereas thc :rcquired ltrnd of Ac'O5-O0 gts., is localed at Chitakodur village - Therefore, thc said sale deeds are not relied upon to assess the markct value of thc acquired lands' c) PWI has admitted in his cross examination that the acquired Iancl is besides Puttigutta ancl that it is situated adjacent lo Chitakoduru Reservoir and thc Iands sub merged under the reservoir are Vadlakonda village lands- A suggcstion was also made to him that the land undcr Dx.A4 is situated aL a ciistance of 4 KM froin the acquired land, r,r'hich rvas denicd by him' 6 NKS,J&L LAAS No 179-201. d) It is argued by the appellants counsel that Chitakociur village is adjacent to Jangaon and that the lands under the salc clccds arc nearby thc acquired lands. It is elicitecl from rhe er.idence ol DWi that the acquired land is at a distance of 1.5 KM an.a_r, from the main road from Jangaon to Narmetta. A perus:rl of the viilagc map discloses that thc Survey Nos.2O6 and 2lO arc near ro thc resiclential area as well as to Jangaon town, r,r,hrle survcl, No.216 is located far away from survey Nos.2O6 ancl 2lO. Hence, i1 is clicitccl that the said survey numbers are not adjacerr t to thc accluirccl l:rncl, as such, thc salc deeds relied upon by the claimanrs carnot Lre Iooked into- c) The admission of pW1 itself clearly sho$,s that thc acquircd lzrnd is besides a hillock, Lhus, considering the saicl lactors, lher reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.6J,OOO/- per acre Ibr dry rands and Rs.1,oo,ooo/ for.dry-cum-r.r.ct rands, u.hich appears to be .just and reasonable. point No. 1 is :rnsu ered accorclingly.

14. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned finding arrived at Point No. I, rhis Court holds that the order and decree of the refercncc Court do not need any in terference. 7 AKs,] & ETD,J LAAS No.379 2013 15 POINT NO.3: ln the result, the appeal is dismrssed upholding the order and clecrecdaled22.o7.2o|3passcdino.P.No.8of2oogbythelcarrred Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon, Warangal Distrlct- No costs' Miscellaneous Petitions pending, il an-v, sha[[ stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon, Warangal Distric (with records, if anY) 2. One CC to Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] 3.TwoCCstoGPFoRAPPEALS'HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana

4. Two CD CoPies Kam/gh yt- l- A:t- ^f i. c \\s r\15 1t i D. ..ipt ',.) "'.jii;' HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.379 of 2013 DISMISSING OF THE APPEAL 1-d"ak" rN rHE H|GH "ouTffl$otffot"'sE oF TELANGANA [ 344s ] FRIDAY. rHE rwENrY FIFrH DAY oI..tIRlL ' '''"llruo iibusnno AND rwENrY FlvE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI TIR,MALA DEVIEADA rHE H.N'BLE '*t' "$H= L.A.A .S.N ot 379of 2013 ""T"*::l;:T"'ff x:xli,xlH'ffi ,:fi ;is',:fF#iil'[1]]/il , lffiioli r'rirmar, w/o Karunakar Rlddv: 1?1,urvr"r"ililw*r^s"t oistritt ,n*r:r*i::*',l#'J:"Xtl#r&1t"","*"f H:**:*lA'": o ii"i'"i" s'i"in'' wo r-'t" ty.1tx;;'iift: ?-",,tt |!i;':i.I"'":i:; ffi1lJli i"nloo"n - 506167' Aoe: 66 vears' Occ ,Ull',*'il:'S;i,'fi ,3i)'f3;etrTI:99,v'31:,;[5;::H":8331'i$.3fi " ;#;,'il Household' R/o' H No 3-7-4111 Ke "3ll ...APPellant No's'3.to 5

506167. ft ::f I3t"lS;,..*...11"",:'f is-[:?tr"",Tl1ii^ii;Jt#easedApperrant ANO The Land Acquisition officer-cum-special Deputy Collector' JCR' GLIP' Jangoan tl'A:.;'i{ffik";da' warangal District ...RespondenuRespondent Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act aggrieved by the Judgment daled 22-01-20" O"t"O in O P No'8 of 2009 on the file of the Court of ttreSeniorCivilJudgeatJangaon,WarangalDistrict. This aPPeal comlng appeal, the iudgment and on for hearing and upon perusing *". :ro'"l-t^' Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers rn the case and upon hearin( *re npperrants a-ni;;:' the arsuments of sri N \ r APPEALS ^rr""r* ".. *iltffiReddv' Advocate ror This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1. That the Appeat be a dated 22-07-2ora ,ri-o ltoo' '" _ Jansaon, warangar ,il:,,']n| " 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. dismissed upholding the order and decree *o 8 of 2009 bv the senior civir Judse ar //TRUE COPYII sD/- K. sRtNfvAS A RAO OINT REGI STRAR To, 1 2 The Sen Two CD 3io!;1'"'n" at Jansaon, waransar Districr SECTION OFFICER I1 HIGH COURT DATED:25t04t202i DECREE LAAS.No.379 of 2013 DISMISSING OF THE APPEAL 14 cd,?A Yk m-+a: