The High Court · 2025

23. Linga Varalakshmi, Wo. Late Linga Srinivas Rao, Aged 75 years, Occ. Household, R/o Villa No 36, Pavani Harmony Suncity, Bandlaguda Jagir, Near Kismatpura, Hyderabad.

24.Ameti Malathi, D/o. Late Linga Srinivas Rao, Aged 49 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Villa No.36, Pavani Harmony Suncity, Bandlaguda Jagir, Near Kismatpura, Hyderabad.

25.Linga Chandra Shekar, S/o. Late Linga Srinivas Rao, Aged 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Villa No.36. Pavani Harmony Suncity, Bandlaguda Jagir, Near Kismatpura, Hyderabad.

26. Linga Kiran Kumar, S/o Late Linga Srinivas Rao, Aged 47 years, Occ. Service, R/o Villa No.36, Pavani Harmony Suncity, Bandlaguda-Jagir, Near Kismatpura. Hyderabad. Respondent No 2 Linga Srinivas Rao (Died per LRs-RR- 23 to 26) 27 .Linga Ramchander, S/o. Late Linga Rajeshwar @ Rajaiah, Aged 53 years, Occ. Self Employed, R/o. Plot No.20, First Floor, Syndicate Bank Colony, West Maredpally, Secunderabad, Hyderabad - 500026.

28. Linga Srikanth, Sio. Late Linga Rajeshwar @ Rajaiah, Aged 49 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Plot No.20, First Floor, Syndicate Bank Colony, West Maredpally, Secunderabad, Hyderabad - 500026.

29. Linga Venkateshwar, S/o. Late Linga Rajeshwar @ Rajaiah, Aged 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.20, First Floor, Syndicate Ban Colony, West Maredpally, Secunderabad, Hyderabad - 500026. Respondent No.3: Linga Rajeshwar @ Rajaiah (Died per LRs-RR-27 to 29)

30. L.S.Satya Laxmi, Wo. Late L.B.Suresh, Aged 66 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No.5-2'l , Near BSNL Office, Petbasheerabad, Jeedimetla Village, Qutubullapur, Ranga Reddy District.

31. L.S.Mahesh Kumar, S/o. Late L.B.Suresh, Aged 42 years, Occ. Private Job, R/o. H.No.5-2'1, Near BSNL Office, Occ. Private Job, R/o. H.No.5-2 1, Near BSNL Office, Petbasheerabad, Jeedimetla Village, Qutubullapur, Ranga Reddy District.

32.L.S.Ramesh, S/o. Late L.B,Suresh, Aged 38 years, Occ. Private Job, R/o. H.No.5-21, Near BSNL Office, Petbasheerabad, Jeedimetla Village, Qutubullapur, Ranga Reddy District.

33.Gudala Swapna, Wo. Omkar Eswar, Aged 39 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No.7-58, lvlain Road, Gajwel Mandal, Gajwel. Respondent No.B: L B Suresh(Died per LRs-RR-3O to 33)

34.Ch. Anitha, Wo. Ch. Ravi Kumar, Aged 52 years, Occ, Household, R/o. Plot No.139 North, NCL Kompally, Hyderabad - 500014.

35. L.C.Pradeep Kumar, S/o. L. Bojaiah Chiranjeevi, Aged 48 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o. Flat No.201, Block - 2, Chiranjeevi Apts., Main Road, West Maredpally, Secunderabad.

36.Singam Sunitha, Wo. S. Srinivas Rao, Aged 47 yearc, R/o. Plot No.182, Road No.4, Mahendra Hills, Trimurthy Colony, ltlaredpalle, Hyderabad - 500026.

37.G. Sangeetha, Wo. G. Suresh, Aged 46 years, Occ. Household, Rlo.11-20- 38/101, Badam Towers, Huda Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad - 500035. Respondent No.1 l: Smt L.C.Nagamani-(Died per LRs-RR-34 to 37)

38. Pabba Saritha, Wo. Pabba Narsinga Rao, Aged 45 years, Occ. Household, Rl o. 3-5-7 42, Vittalwadi, Narayanguda, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad - 500029.

39.Samudrala Chandrika, Wo. Samudrala Veera Venkateshwara Rao, Aged 43 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. 1-9-670, Street No. 1 , Adikmet, Vidya Nagar, Hyderabad - 500044.

40.T. Suresh, S/o. T. Narayana, Aged 28 years, Occ. Business, R/o. 2-3-685/5, Flat No.301, Venkateshwara Nagar, Puran Shanthi Sheela Homes, CPL Road, Golnaka, Amberpet, Hyderabad - 500013.

41.T. Varun, S/o. T. Suresh, Aged 28 years, Occ. Private Job, R/o. 2-3-685/5, Flat No.301, Venkateshwara Nagar, Puran Shanthi Sheela Homes, CPL Road, Golnaka Amberpet. Hyderabad - 5000'13.

42.T. Sankeerth, S/o. T. Suresh, Aged 24 years, Occ. Private Job, R/o. 2-3- 685/5, Flat No301, Venkateshwara Nagar, Puran Shanthi Sheela Homes, CPL Road, Golnaka, Amberpet, Hyderabad - 500013. Respondent No 15: Smt. C.V. Annapurna - (Died per LRs-RR-38 to 42)

43. T. Bhagya Laxmi, Wo T Krishna, Aged 49 years, Occ. Household, R/o.5-6- 7811, Dayarguda, Near Raos High School, Kukatpallp Thirumalgiri, Hyderabad - 500072 44, Pasumarthy Bhanu Rekha, Wo. P S.V.S.S.L. Narayana, Aged 47 years, Occ. Household, R/o 5-21, Jaggayapeta, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. Respondent No 20 Y.H.Jyothi-(Died per LRs-RR-43 & 44)

45. Pola Veenavathi, Wo. P. Sambasiva Rao, Aged 54 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No 1-1-200, JJ Nagar, Suryapeta, Nalgonda District - 508213

46.Chitta Padmavathi, Wo. C Shankar, Aged 52 years, Occ. Household, R/o. 8- 1-46314, Second Floor, CBR Complex, Secunderabad - 500003.

47. Ranjolu Uma. Wo. R. Ramarao, Aged 50 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H. No.'12-10-587198, FIat No.201, Sri Srinivasa Residency, Seethafal-mandi, Secunderabad 500061 Respondent No 21: Linga Saraswathi-(Died per LRs-RR-45 lo 47)

48. Linga Ramya Chandra, D/o. Late LG Ravinder, Aged 29 years, Occ. Software Engineer, R/o. Flat No.1 04, Sai Sadan Apartments, NCL North Avenue, Kompally, Hyderabad - 50014.

49. Linga Archana Chandra, D/o. Late LG Ravinder, Aged 27 years, Occ. Software Employee, R/o. Flat No.104, Sai Sadan Apartments, NCL North Avenue, Kompally, Hyderabad - 500014.

50. Linga Neeraja, Wo. Late LG Ravinder, Aged 55 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Flat No. l04, Sar Sadan Apartments, NCL North Avenue, Kompally, Hyderabad - 500014 5'l . Linga Santosh Chandra, S/o. Late LG Ravinder, Aged 32 years, R/o. Flat No-104, Sai Sadan Apartments, NCL North Avenue, Kompally, Hyderabad - 500014. Respondent Nos.23 to 51 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Respondent Nos.2,3,8,1 1,15,20,21 & 22 as pet Court order dated 13-06- 2023,vide 1A Nos.10,25,22,7,13,16,19 &4of 2023 in LAAS No.13 of 2010. ...Respondents/Claimants I.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(LAASMP. NO: 197 OF 2010) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed in O.P.No.128 of 1992, dated '17-11-2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Ranga Reddy, including execution there of in E.P.No.160 of 2009 pending disposal of the appeal. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2010(LAASMP. NO: 833 OF 2010) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to deposit the differential amount of Rs. 2,65,81,964/- as per the order dt. 1711112008 passed in OP,No. 128 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar Counsel for the Appellant: The Advocate General Counsel for the Respondents: Chandrasen Law Offices L.A.A.S.No.674 of 2010 Appeal filed under Section 54 of L.A.Act of 1894, aggrieved by the judgment and decree daled 17-11-2008 made in O.P.No.128 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Between: 'l . Linga Gowri Shanker (Died per L.Rs.) 2. Linga Srinivas Rao, S/o. Late Ramachandraiah (Died per LRs) 3. Linga Rajeshwar @ Rajaiah, S/o. Late Ramachandraiah, aged 82 years,(Died per LRs) Appellants No.1 to 3 R/o. Jeedimetla Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4. L.B.Nagender, S/o. Late Linga Bojaiah, aged 82 years 5. L.B.Murlidhar, S/o. Late Linga Bojaiah, aged 85 years Appellants No.4 & 5 are R/o. H.No.1O-2-27415, S.P.Road, Marredpally, Secunderabad.

6. L.B.Ashok Kumar, S/o. Bojaiah, aged 72 years R/o. H.No. 10-2-27415, S.P.Road, Marredpally, Secunderabad.

7. L.B.Ramachander, S/o. Late L.Bojaiah, aged 67 years R/o. H.No. 1O-2-27415, S.P.Road, Marredpally, Secunderabad.

8. L.B.Suresh, S/o. Late L.Bojalah (Died per LRs)

9. L.B.Shamsundar, S/o. Late L.Bojaiah, aged B0 years R/o. H.No. 3-60/1, Petbasheerabad, Ranga Reddy District. '10.L.B.Srihari, S/o. Late L.Bojaiah, aged 69 years, R/o. H.No.3-60/1, Petbasheerabad, Ranga Reddy Diskict. 1 l. Smt L.C.Nagamani, Wo. L.B.Chiranjeevi (died per LRs) 12.Smt. L.B.Jayalakshmi, Wo. Late L.Bojaiah, aged 84 years, R/o. H.No. 3060/1 , Petbasheerabad Ranga Reddy District.

13. Smt L.Manamma (died), Wo. Late Bojaiah '14. Smt C. R. Pushpalatha, W/o. C.Ramachandraiah, aged 78 years, R/o. H.No. '16-127, Sainagar Alwal, Ranga Reddy District

15. Smt. C.V.Annapurna, Wo. C.Venkatesh (died per LRs) 16. Smt T.A.Dhanalaxmi, Wo. Anjaneyulu, aged 70 years, H.No. T.Lingaiah Cloth Merchant Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.

17. Smt. T.N.Sridevi, Wo. T.Nageshwara Rao, aged 66 years, R/o. T.Lingaiah Cloth Merchant Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.

18.Smt. J.V.Ramadevi, Wo. Veeraprabhu, aged68 years R/o. H.No. 14-2-23218, Jambagh Colony, Hyderabad.

19. Smt. T.N.Sharada, Wo. T.Nagaraju, aged 41 years, R/o. Hyderbasti, Hyderabad.

20. Y.H.Jyothi, Wo Hanumantha Rao (died) 21 . Linga Saraswathi, Wo. Linga Gowri Shankar (died) 22. Linga Ravinde(died) S/o Linga Gowri Shankar, aged 52 years, Appellants No 21 & 22 Rlo. Flat No. 104, Sri Sai Sadan Apartments, NCL North Kompally, Kompally, Secunderabad.

23. Linga Ramya Chandra,D/o Late L.G.Ravinder, aged 22 years, Occ: Software engineer in Tata Consultancy Services, R/o Flat No.'104, Sai Sadan Apartments, NCL North Avenue, Kompally, Hyderabad 500 014

24. Linga Archana Chandra, D/o Late L.G. Ravinder, aged 20 years, Occ: Student 25. Linga Neeraja, Wo Late L.G.Ravinder, aged 48 years, Occ: Household 26. Linga Santosh Chandra, S/o Late L.G.Ravinder, aged 25 years, Occ: Student, Above all are R/o Flat No.104, Sai Sadan Apartments, NCL North Avenue, Kompally, Hyderabad 500 014 App_ellants 23-26 are brought on record as Legal Representative of deceased 22no Appellant as per the Hon'ble Court dated 21-02-2017 made in LAASMP.323 of 2016.

27.Pola Veena Vathi w/o P Sambasiva Rao, aged 47 years, Occ: Household R/o. H.no. 1-1-2000, JJ Nagar, Suryapet, Nalgonda district. 508213

28. Chitta Padmavathi wlo. C. Shankar, aged 45 years, Occ:Household, R/o H.No. B-1-463/4 Second Floor, CBR Complex Secunderabad-5OO003

29. Ranjolu Uma w/o. R. Rama Rao, aged 13, Occ. House hold R/o. H.No.12-10- 587/98 Flat No 20'l , Sure Susni vaga Residency, Seethafal Mandi, Secunderabad-5000061 27 to 29 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased Appellants No 21 as per Court order dated 06-04-2017 in I-AASMP 258 of 2017

30. Linga Ramchander S/o. Late Rajeshwar @Raiaiah, aged about 47 years, Occ: self emPloyed

31. Linga Srikanth S/o late Rajeshwar @Rajaiah, aged about 47 years, Occ: Business

32. Linga Venkateshwar S/o. Late Rajeshwar @ Rajaiah, aged about4T years, Occ: Business All are Rlo. plot No. 20. First Floor, Syndicate Bank, Colony, west Maredepally, Secunderabad-500026 are brought on record as LRs ofthe deceased Appellant No.3 as per court order dated 24-07 -2017 in LAASMP. No .7 12 ol 2017 as Appellant Nos.30 to 22

33. Linga Varalakshmi W/o. Late Linga Srinivas Rao, Aged 75 years, Occ. Household

34. Ameti Malathi D/o. Late Linga Srinivas Rao, Aged 49 years, Occ. Household 35. Linga Chandra Shekar S/o. Late Linga Srinivas Rao, Aged 52 years, Occ Business

36. Linga Kiran Kumar S/o. Late Linga Srinivas Rao, Aged 47 yeats, Occ. Service All are Rl/o. Villa No.36, Pavani Harmony, Suncity, Bandlaguda Jagir, Near Kismatpura, Hyderabad. Appellant No.2: Linga Srinivas Rao (died per LRs-A-33 to 36)

37. L.S. Satya Laxmi Wo. Late L.B. Suresh, Aged 66 years, Occ. Household

38. L.S. Mahesh Kumar S/o. Late L.B. Suresh, Aged 42 years, Occ- Private Job

39. L.S.Ramesh s/o. Late L.B. Suresh, Aged 38 years, Occ Private Job All are R/o. H.No.5-21, Near BSNL Office, Petbasheerabad, Jeedimetla Village, Qutubullapur, Ranga Reddy District.

40. Gudala Swapna Wo. G. Omkar Eswar, Aged 39 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H No.7-58, Main Road, Gajwel Mandal, Gajwel.

41. Ch. Anitha Wo. Ch. Ravi Kumar, Aged 52 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Plot No.139 North, NCL Kompally, Hyderabad-500014

42. L.C. Pradeep Kumar S/o. L. Bojaiah Chiranjeevi, Aged 48 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o. Flat No.201, Block-2, Chiranjeevi Apts., Main Road, West Maredpally, Secunderabad. 43. Singam Sunitha Wo. S. Srinivas Rao, Aged 47 yeats, R/o. Plot No. 182, Road No.4, Mahendra Hills, Trimurthy Colony, Maredpalle, Hyderabad-500026. 44. G. Sangeetha Wo. G. Suresh, Aged 46 years, Occ. Household, P.Jo. 11-20- 38/101, Badam Towers, Huda Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad-500035. Appellant No.11: Smt LC Nagamani (Died per LRs-A4'l to 44) 45 Pabba Saritha Wo. Pabba Narsing Rao, Aged 45 years. Occ. Household, Rio.3- 5-7 42, V tllalw ad i, Na raya n guda, H imayathnagar, Hyderabad-500029

46. Samudrala Chandrika Wo. Samudrala Veera Venkateshwar Rao, Aged 43 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. 1-9-670, Street No. 1, Adikmet, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad- 500044.

47. T.Suresh S/o. T. Narayana, Aged 57 years, Occ. Business

48. T. Varun S/o T Suresh, Aged 28 years, Occ. Private Job

49. T. Sankeerth S/o. T.Suresh, Aged 24 years, Occ. Private Job Sl.Nos.3 to 5 are R/o 2-3-685/5 Flat No.301, Venkateshwara Nagar, Puran Shanthi Sheela Homes, CPL Road, Golnaka, Amberpet, Hyderabad-500013. 50 T.Bhagya Laxmi Wo. T.Krishna, Aged 49 years, Occ. Household, R/o.5-6-78/1 Dayarguda, Near Raos High School, Kukatpally, Thirumalgiri, Hyderabad-500072,

51. Pasumarthy Bhanu Rekha Wo. P.S.V.S.S.L. Narayana Aged 47 years, Jaggayapeta, Krishna District. Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos.33 to 51 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Appellant No.2,8, 1 1,1 5 & 20 as per Court order dated 01-09-2022, vide lA. No. 1 of 2021, lA Nos.9,12,6 &3of 2022 in LAAS.No.674 of 2010. AND The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition lndustries, Hyderabad. ...Appellants ... Respondents/Respondents I.A. NO: 2 OF 201O(LAASMP. NO: 1055 OF 2010) Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 496 days in filing the present first appeal and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Appellant: The Advocate General Counsel for the Respondents: Chandrasen Law Offices The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT ',n HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA L.A.A.S.NOs.13 AND 674 OF 2O1O COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'bLe Smt. Justtce Titumata Deui Eada) These two appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act) are fi1ed by the appellant(s) aggrieved by the order and decree dated 17.i1.2008 passed in O.P.No. 128 of 1992 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the reference Court') .

2. Since both the appeals are filed questioning the very same order and decree passed by the reference Court, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment.

3. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the reference Court.

4. The facts of the case in brief are that draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and draft declaration were published in the Gazette ort 23.04.1981. The draft declaration got lapsed for want of Urban Land Clearance, no award could be passed within the statutory period, Hence, APIIC Limited has issued a fresh \\ 2 AK5,] & ETD,I requisition on 01.09.1998. Based on which a fresh draft notihcation and declaration were published on 03.10.1990 and

25.10.199O rcspectively, in respect of acquired lands to an extent of Ac.11.18 gunlas in survey No.266 and Ac.16.16 guntas in survey No.28O at.leedimctla Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy Drstrict for lerving approach road for industrial development area at Jeedimetla. ,{fter conducting due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award @ Rs.7O/- per square yard for survey No.266 and Rs.75/- per square yard for survey No.280. Aggrieved by the saicl aw'ard, the claimants have filed a petition for reference and thc samo was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of Principal Scnror Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

5. The casr: of the claimants before the reference Court was that the land that is acquired is near to the city of Hyderabad and is surroundecl bv the industrial estates and residential localities and that there arc several prominent industries near the acquired land. The lands I'rave high potentiality for building purposes and that their lands u,ould fetch not less than Rs.500/- per square yard.

6. The Special Deputy Collector has filed his counter contending that the salcs statistics were called from the sub-registrar offrce and that after due enquiry the Land Acquisition Ofhcer has passed the award and that it does not suffer from any infirmity. That there-is'_--, i l I I I i I ,l 3 AKS,J & ETD,J no development as put forth by the claimants and that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Ofhcer holds good.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the reference Court has framed the following points for consideration Whether the award Acquisition Ofhcer adequate? passed by the not reasonable 1S Land 2 Whether the claimants are entitled to get the enhanced compensation, if so, at what rate?

3. To what relief.2"

8. Before the reference Court, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.Al to A11 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, RWl was examined and Exs.Bl to 84 were marked.

9. Based on the evidence on record, the reference Court has awarded Rs. 170/- per square yard, apart from granting the statutory benehts. Aggrieved by the said compensation, the Special Deputy Collector has preferred LAAS No.13 of 2O7O, while the claimants have preferred LAAS No.674 of 2010.

10. Heard the submissions of learned Advocate General appearing for the Special Deputy Collector and M/s.Chandrasen Law Ofhces, learned counsel appearing for t1le claimants. I 4 AKS,I & ETD,] 1 1. The lezrrned Ach'ocate General has submitted that the reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation and that the Lancl Acquisition Officer has awarded just compensation and that thc ar:quired lands do not fetch such a high value as alleged by thc claimants. He further submitted that the claimants have initialll, claimecl Rs.2O0/ - per square yard before the Land Acquisition Olfit:er and also the reference Court, and that later on they got their petition amended and claimed Rs 5O0/- per square yard and that tl're said claim is not at all justilLed The claimants coulcl not 1>1rrce any evidence on record in support of their contentions lrnd that the documents put forth by them are subsequenl to lhe date of possession and notification, and that the claimants ilrc rlot entitled to interest from the date of possession in view of thc ltru, Iaid dorvn by the Apex Court in R.L.Jain o' DDA| ' Learned counscl has further argued that the reference Court has made an error in arvarding l2ok of the additional market value from the date o1- clispossession. He therefore, prayed to conhrm the award passe d ttv the Land Acquisition Of{icer.

12. Learncrl counsel for the claimants submitted that their lands have high potential and the acquired land is surrounded by the industrial arca and a residential colony and that their lands have all the amenitir:s like schools, hospitals, electricity, water and ' (zooa) a scc zg /l 5 AKS,J & ETD,J telephone connections etc. He further submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has failed to take the highest sales statistics that are available and that the acquired lands would fetch more value and have high potential for further development and therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

13. Considering the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for consideration:

1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

2. Whether the claimants are not entitled to additional market vahte @ l2oh lrom the date of dispossession till date of award?

3. Whether the claimants are not entitled to interest from the date of taking possession i.e. from 14.10.1981?

4. Whether the order and decree of the reference Court need any interference?

5. To what reliel?

14. POINT NO.1: a) The contention of the claimants is that the acquired lands are well deveioped and that they are situated in close proximit5r to the already developed industrial area and residential area. It is their further contention that their land is suitable for further development and that it would fetch a value of Rs.500/- per square yE d f" support of their case, three witnesses were examined. I 6 AKS,I & ETD,J PW 1 rerterated the said averments in his chief affidavit ln b) his cross examination il is elicited that the land lr'as not made into plots prior to acquisition. It is not the case of the petitioners that their land u.a s alrcady couverted into a residential zone by making into plols bu r, it is their contention that since it is nearby the industrial arr:a and also residential locality, their lands can fetch more value. c) It is elic:ited from PW2 that the acquired land is connected to Narsapur Statc Highwal' Road which in turn connects t.he National Highway Nos.7 and 9 and that the Narsapur road is about 200 meters lrom t ht: acqutred land and that prior to acquisition, the lands near thcir acquired lands have been sold as house plots. It is further cliciterl through him that the plots under Exs.Al and ,A'2 are situated very near to the acquired land at a distance of 500 meters and that thc plot under Exs.A3 to A 1 1 are also situated in close proximity of lt'ss Lhan 1 KM from the acquired lancl. He relied upon trxs.Al to A11 ir-r proof of his case. It is elicited through his cross examination t hat there are factories, AG foundaries, Mahalaxmi Pipes, APStrR Electricity Colony and residentral colonies like Shapurnagar rrnd Achayanagar nearby the acquired lands since

1992. It is further elicited that the neighbouring Iands were divided into house plo1s. 7 AKs,J & ETD,J d) PW3 is the owner of plot No.64 admeasuring 300 square yards in part of survey No.269 at Quthbullapur village ald that he purchased the said plot in the year 1987 and that at the time of his purchase, the surrounding area was made into house plots and being sold and that the acquired lands are at'a distance of 40O meters from his plot and he paid consideration of Rs. 150/- per square yard. The said sale transaction is reflected in Ex.Al. Nothing material could be elicited through his cross examination to dislodge his evidence. e) PW4 is the owner of plot No.65 admeasuring 489 square yards in survey Nos.230 and 231 situated at Padmanagar colony, Qutbullapur vi11age. It is elicited that he paid sale consideration of Rs. 15O/- per square yard. In his cross examination it is elicited that the sale transaction is reflected in Ex.A7. f) Considering the evidence of PWs I to 4 and the sale deeds filed in proof of the said transactions under Exs.Al and A7, it is held that the land surrounding the acquired land, was already made into plots and sold at Rs. 150/- per square yard. g) It is elicited from RWl that, sales statistics were collected by him and that by the time of acquisilion, the surrounding lands were covered by industries and that the acquired land is a part of industrial area and that the entire area was already developed, prior to acquisition. The Mahalaxmi Gas Induriy, RB foundry were I 8 AKS,] & ETD,J established prior to 1980 and that they are at a distance of 400 meters frorn the acquired lands. trxs.A1 to 11 arc the sale deeds pertaining to the years 1985 h) to 1989. 'lhe clale of notification in this case is in the year 1990, though initial notification was issued in the year 1981, the award couid not be passed lor want of ULC and since, the earlier draft declaration got lapsed, another notihcation was issued in the year

1990. Hence. thc sales statistics of preceding three years can be relied upon, tl'rercfore, r:xcept Ex.A1 dated 2O.05. t985 all the other sale deeds pertaining to the year 1987, 1988 and 1989 can be reiied upon and takcn into consideration to hx the market value in the present case. The value of the land under the said sale deeds is around Rs- 150/ per square yard. i) Thc respondents relied upon Exs.B I to 83 which are also the salc deeds. A pt:rusal ol Ex.Bl reveals that it refers to the sale of a plot No.B- 136 admeasuring 180 Square Yards in survey Nos.276, 277 , 281 and 282 of Apuroopa Township at Jeeclimetla village for a total sale considcration of Rs.9,900/- @ Rs.55/- per square yard. j) RW1 in his evidence has stated that he has relied upon the sale statistics at SI.No.194,274,215 ad 216 which are the adjacent lands in survct Nos.276, 277, 281 and 282, wheretn the land was sold @Rs.56/- per square yard, Rs.6O/- per square yard and Rs.82.50/- per square yard. Thus, basing on ttre said sale deeds, (\ 9 AKs,J & ETD,I he has frxed the value @ Rs.75/- and Rs.70/- per square yard for the acquired lands. k) RWI evidence discloses that he has taken the sale statistics of the surrounding survey numbers and they are adjacent to the acquired lands. It is also revealed from the village map under Ex.B4 that the survey numbers, under which the sale deeds of Exs.A2 to A8 are hled, are surrounding survey numbers and it is also elicited that the acquired lands have an access to the Narsapur main road leading from the State Highway. 1) lt is an established fact from the evidence of RW1 and also the sale deeds relied upon by him that the land was plotted and the sales were conducted on yardage basis, thus revealing that the lands were in a high potentiality area. Hence, the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer appears to be very low and needs enhancement. Therefore, the enhancement made by the reference Court is well justified and that the claimants are not entitled to any further enhancement. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

15. POINT NO.2: a) Another contention raised by the appellant counsel is that the reference Court ought not to have awarded the additional market value @ l2o/o frorn the date of possession and that it is supposed to be granted from the date of notification. I i i t I I 10 AKs,] & FTD,J (., b) It is pertrnent to refer to Section 23(1-A) of the Act and the same is cxtractcd hereunder: "23.(1-A) In addition to the market value ol the land, as above, lhe Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market .value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 Sub- Section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession ofthe land, whichever is earlier". c) Thus, a plain reading of Section 23(1-A) would infer that l2oh of additional marl<et value has to be au,arded from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) to the date of the award of Collector or the date of taking possession of the 1and, whichever is earlier d) ln Special Tahsilddr (LA), P.W.D, Schemes o. M.A.Jqbbana, it was held lhat the possession having alreadlz been taken on

15.02.1965, i.e. before lrublication of the notihcatLon under Section 4(1) which was on 06.03.1980, the award of additional amount for the period from O6.03.1980 to the date of making award i.e.

30.09.1983 is perfectly correct- e) It was observed by the Apex Court in Asstt.Commr., Gad.ag Sub-Diulsion u. Mathapathi Basaaqnnaetau)a3 that if possession ' 1r9ss; z scc r+z '1rsss; o scc :ss 11 AKs,J & ETD,J is taken prior to the notification, then the strict construction of Section 23(1-A) would lead to unjust result, hardship to the owner and defeats legislative object. Therefore, in its view, the expression "whichever is earlier" in Section 23(1-A) had to be construed in that backdrop and the claimant is entitled to the additional amount from the date of taking possession. Since advance possession was taken prior to the publication of notification under Section 4(1), 'the claimants, by necessary implication are entitled to the payment of the additional amount by way of compensation from the date of taking over possession for the loss of enjoyment of the land. f) Analyzing these two decisions, the Constitutional Bench in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri v. Special Land Acgulsltion Otficef has held that from Section 23(1-4.), the starting point for the purposes of calculating the amount to be awarded @72%o p.a. on thre market value is the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification. The terminal point for the purpose is either the date of the award or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier. In the present case, the possession of the land having been taken prior to the publication, that terminal is not available. The only available terminal is the date of the award. Therefore, it was held that the appellants are entitled to the additional compensation under Section 23(i-A) from the date of notihcation till date of award. By o 120021 t Supreme Court Cases 142 I I 1 12 AKS,I & ETD,I holding so, the Apex Court has held that the decision laid down in M.A.Jabbar (supra 2) is the correct law, rvhile the decision rendered in Mathapathi Basaaanneu)uta's case (supra 3) has not been correctly laid down. Thus, the Apex Court has finally held that the additional market value has to be awardecl liom the date of notification ti1l the date of award. Therefore, the contention of the appellant's counsel is valid and in conformity with rhe 1aw laid down by the Apex Court. g) In vieq' of foregorng discussion, in the present case, it is held that thc additional marl<et value of 127o needs to be granted from the clale of notification but not from the date of possession. Therefore, the order of the reference Court with regard to awarding additional market value has to be modified. Point No.2 is answered, accordingly. 't6. POINT NO.3: a) Under Section 28 of the Act, the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess amount of compensation @ 9%o per annum from the date on which possession was taken to the date of payment of such excess amount into the Court. b) It was held in R.L.Jaln's case (supra 1) that publication of notilication is sine qua non for any proceedings and if possession is 13 AKS,I & ETD,J taken prior to the issuance of notification, it would not be in accordance with the Section 16 or 77 and it will be without any authority of law and consequently cannot be recognized for the purposes of the Act. Therefore, if at all any interest has to be awarded, it is from the date of notification, but not from the date of dispossession, if possession is taken after notihcation. It was further held that where possession is taken prior to the issuance of the preliminary notihcation, it wiil be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the landowner is entitled white determining the compensation amount payable to the landowner for the acquisition of the property. c) Further, in Taherq Khotoon o. Reaenue Divisional Offt.cef , the decision of R. L.Jain (supra 1) was discussed ald it was further held that the rents/damages at the rate of l1oh on the compensation is to be awarded from the date the landowners were dispossessed till the date of issuance of the preliminary Notihcation. d) In view of the 1aw laid down by the Apex Court in R.L.Jqin (supra 1) and in Tqhera Khotoon (supra 5), it is held that the claimants would be entitled for the interest from the date of dispossession. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. t 120141 13 Supreme Court cases 613 L4 AKS,J & ETD,J o

17. POINT NO.4: In view of the reasoned finding arrived at point Nos.l to 3, the order and decree dated 17 .ll.2OO8 passed in O.P.No. 128 of 1992 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad need to be modified u,ith regard to the additional market value and the interest. The Reference Court has awarded l2o/o of additional market value from the date of possession til1 the date of award, which is not tenable in the eye of 1aw. Therefore, it is held that the claimants are entitled for additional market value @ 12ok per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act on the enhanced amount from the date of notihcation till the date of award. The claimants are also entitled to the interest @ gyo per annum from the date of dispossession for the l-rrst one year and thereafter l5%o per annum till the date of realization.

18. POINT NO.s: In the result, L.A.A.S.No.13 of 2010 filed by the Special Deputy Collector is partly allowed by modifying the order and decree dated 17.11.2008 passed in O.P.No.128 of 1992 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar, to the extent of additional market value and the rate of interest i.e. the claimants are entitled to additional market value @ I2oh per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the act on the enhanced compensation from the 15 AKS,J & ETD,J date of notihcalion till the date of award and with regard to the interest the claimants are entitled to the interest on the enhanced compensation including solatium from the date of dispossession @ 9o/o per annum for the Iirst one year and thereafter @ 15% till the date of realization. The remaining award so far as the awarded by the reference Court shall stand L.A.A.S.No.67 4 of 2O1O filed by the claimants is compensation conhrmed. dismissed. No costs Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR /, M ,L', OFFICER SECTIO To,

1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar 2. One CC to The Advocate General, [OPUCI 3. One CC to Chandrasen Law Offices [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Kam/gh HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 ( () <i \ ) ,l I .$ .tl,. ,-s' :c .$ * s \{\ I '\.r :. \ l/ ,Lt ,/J ,.\, L,'ai/ COMMON JUDGMENT+COMMON DECREE LAAS.No.13 and 674 of 2O10 PARTLY ALLOWING LAAS No.113 of 2010 and DISMISSING OF THE LAAS No.674 ot 2010