The High Court · 2025

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 pursuant to the judgment and decree dated. 21 .04.2017 made in LAOP.No.18 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad. Counsel for the Appellant : GP For APPEALS Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty The Court delivered the following: Judgment I I /, t HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SIiAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY LAAS.No.9l of 2018 JUDGMEN't: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alisheuy) Heard leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader lbr Appeals appearing lor the appellant-Land Acquisition Ofilcer and Sri Aj ay Kumar Madisetty, leamed counsel for the respondents- claimants.

2. This Appeal, under Section 54 olthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for brevity'the Act'), is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer aggrieved by the order and decree dated 21.04.2() [7 passed in O.P.No. l8 of 2006 on the file ol the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, (for brevity, hereinafter ret'erred to as "the Relerence Court")

3. ln nut-shell, the facts of the case are that on a requisition made by the Executive Engineer, Hanarnkonda, the lands admeasuring Acs.15.28 Y2 guntas situated in Seerole Vitlage, Kuravi Mandal, Mahabubabad District, belonging to the respondents-claimants were acquired fbr the purpose ol'excavation ol minor canals 9-Respondent, 4R, I I lt ol DBM 48 lrom K.M.

1.000 to 10.000; that Draft notiflcation under Secrion 4(l) and that dra,!- declaration under Section 6 of the Act were published in the ...... 2 IKS.J&LNl,J Lt.{s.No.g t oI20tE A.P. Gazette on 19.07.2002 and 20.07 .2002, respectively; that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and on conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Olficer passed Au,ar.d No.3/2003-04, dated 31.07.2000, fixing the rnarket value of the acquired land @ Rs.30,000/- per acre. 4. The respondents/claimants received the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and sought reference under Section l8 olthe Act and the same was referred to competent civil Coum and numbercd as O.P.No. l8 of 2006 on the file of the Relerence Court

5. Before the Relerence Court, on behalf of the respondents/claimants, P.Ws. I to 3 were exaurined and Exs.P-l to P-3 were marked. On behall ol the appellant-Refening Officer, R.W-l was examined and E.x.R-l-Arvard and Ex.R-2-Award proceedings were marked

6. On due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record. the Reference Coun enhanced the market value of the subject acquired lands from Rs.30,000/- per acre to Rs.67,500/- per acre, apart fiom granting other statutory benefits under the Act to the claimants. Aggrieved the said enhancement, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Olficer I I I I / 3 AKS,J & LNA, J LaAS.No.gl oJ20l8

7. Leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer contended that without any basis whatsoever, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands; that the Reference Court seems to be sympathized on the claimants to be small farmers and based on that ground alone, it has doubled the market value ofthe subject acquired lands as was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer; that the impugned order is passed by the Reference Court without judicial application of mind and further, the Reference Court, having held that Ex.P- I -sale deed pertains to post- notification period and hence, the same cannot be considered, erred in relying upon the very same sale deed and enhancing the market value of the acquired lands and that therefore, he prayed this Court to allow this Appeal setting aside the impugned order of the Reference Court.

8. Per contra, leamed counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that taking into account the potentiality of the subject acquired lands and further, the admission of the [-and Acquisition Officer as R.W- l that some of the lands were severed due to lormation ol canal, thereby making remaining part of land uncultivable and also the fact that the claimanrs are all small tarmers, who eke out their livelihood as agricultural [abourers, has * .\o -/"/ 4 AKS.J&LNA J L,IAS No 9l of2018 rightly enhanced the market value ofthe subject acquired lands and the enhancement made by the Reference Court is fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and as such, the impugned order calls for no interference by this Court.

9. In support of their claim for enhancement of market value for the subject acquired lands, the claimants have got marked Exs.P-l to P-3, i.e., Ex.P-l is sale deed bearing doc.No.243l2003, dated 10.03.2003,Ex.P-2 is sale deed bearing doc.No. 1885/2000, dated 29.12.2000 and Ex.P-3 is sale deed bearing doc.No.23212006, dated 04.02.2006.

10. In the instant case, the 4(l) notification was issued on

19.07.2002. As per the Land Acquisition Act. 1894, for determining and fixing the true and correct market value of the acquired lands, the sale deeds pertaining to three years preceding the date of 4(1) notification have to be considered. As such, Exs.P-l andP-3 pertain to sale deeds of the years 2003 and 2006, respectively, they cannot be taken into consideration for fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands as the same are subsequent to 4(l) notification. The Reference Court though observed that Ex.P-l cannot be considered at para-14 of its order, ultimately, at para-16 observed that since the nature of the acquired lands and the lands covered under Ex.P- l-sale deed are sirnilar in - ..t- /// n 5 AKS,J&LNI,J UAS.No.9l oJ20l8 nature, Ex.P-l is taken a representative sale deed and the market value of the subject acquired land was fixed @ Rs.67,500/- per acre. Hence, in the light of provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Reference Court erred in relying upon Ex.p-l-sale deed for fixation olmarket value ofthe subject acquired lands. I l. Ex.A-2-sale deed sought to be relied upon by the claimants pertains to land situated in Vennaram Village. The subject acquired lands are situated at Seerole Village of Kuravi Mandal. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the Award fixing the market value of the subject acquired lands, has referred to eight sale deeds of Mannegudem Village and only two sale deeds of Seerole Village, where the subject acquired lands are situated. ll. Perusal ol the record reveals that the lands situated at Secrole Village and Mannegudem Village are acquired under the sarne notification for the very same purpose of excavation of minor canals. I'herefbre . it can be inferred that Seerole and Mannegudem Villages are neighbouring Villages and further, comparcd to Vennaram Village, Mannegudem Village is nearer to Seerole Villagc. -l'hat aparr, it is not the case of the Land Acquisition Olljcer rhar rhe narure of acquired lands in Seerole Village is ditl'erent tiorn thc' lands covered by sale deeds of Mannegudem -" 6 AKS.J&LNA,J LAAS.No.glof20t8 \ Village referred to in the Award. Therefore, when no comparable saie deeds of the same Viliage are available, it is justifiable to consider the sale deeds of a neighbouring Viltage, i.e.,, Mannegudem Village for fixation of the subject acquired lands. Atl the sale deeds of Mannegudem Village referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in the Award, irrespective of dry or wet lands, reflects the market value of the land @ Rs.45,000/- per acre. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion it is just and reasonable to fix the market value ofthe subject acquired lands @ Rs.45,000/- per acre.

13. As stated hereinabove, the Reference Court has committed grave error in relying upon Ex.P-1, which is a post notitication sale deed and frxing the market value o[ the acquired lands @ Rs.67,5001 per acre, based on it and therefore, lhe samc is unsustainable.

14. Learned Assistant Govemment Pleader lor Appeals submitted that the Reference Court erred in granting additional market value @ 12.5% per annum. As per the provisions ol the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the claimants arc cntitled to additional market value @ 12% per annum. Hence, this Court finds forcc in the said submission of the learned Assistant Govemment Pleader I ? /KS,J&LNA.J L.4AS.No9l of20l8 and the impugned order of the Reference Court in respect of granting additional market value is tiable to be modified.

15. In the light of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered vicu,that this Appeal is liable to be allowed in part.

16. Accordingly, this Appeal is allowed in part, modiSing the market valuc ol- the subject acquired lands from Rs.67,500/- per acre, as rvas llxr-d by the Reference Court, to Rs.45,000/- per acre, and the clairnants are entitled to additional market value @ 12o/o per annum. 'l-he remaining part of the impugned order of the Ref-erence Court holds good.

17. As a st'qucl, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand c losed. \o costs //TRUE COPY// SD/. M, VIJAYA BHASKER CIINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Crvrl ludge Mahabubabad 2. Twoccs to the Gp FoFi'l#dri, iign court for the state of Telangana at s. 6;," cC to S,, Alay Kumar Madisetty' Advocate [oPUCl 4. Two CD CoPtes Hyderabad (OUT) ADK/gh HIGH COURT DATED:2810212025 1 I 2 -'--..a- EL {a)ry *t \ f.\ ,l t RAFTS JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.91 of 2018 PARTLY ALLOWING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT N O: 9't OF 2018 Between: The Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unil1. SRSP Hanmakonda AND ... Appel la nURefe rencer

1. Samala Uppalaih, S/o. Narsiah, aged not known, Occ. not known, 2. Samala tvluthaiha, S/o.Mangaiah, aged not known, Occ not known, 3. Dharavatham Malsoor, S/o. Lacha, aged not known, Occ nol known, 4. Daharavath Laxma, S/o. Rajya, aged not known, Occ not known, 5. Dharavath Sona, Wo. Gopal, aged not known, Occ not known, 6. Jarpula Sakriya, S/o. Panthulaya, aged not known, Occ not known, 7. Banoth Bhagya, S/o. Ramulu, aged not known, Occ not known, 8. Banoth Jagya, {o. Ramulu, aged not known, Occ.not known, (All are R/o. Korlakunta Thanda, H/o.Seerole Village of Kuravi Mandal) 9. Dasari Nagendra, S/o. Pullaiah, aged not known. Occ not knoiryn,

10.Dasari Kanakaiah, S/o. Veeraswamy. aged not known, Occ not known,

11. Dasari Ramulu, S/o. Mallaiah, aged not known, Occ not known,

12.Nagati Veeraswamy, S/o. Ramaiah, aged not known. Occ not known,

13.Nagati Ramachandraiah, S/o. Ramaiah, aged not known, Occ not known, '14. Nagati Pedda Uppalah, S/o. Ramachandraiah, aged not known, Occ not known, 'l5.Vankudoth Bicha, S/o. Chandru, aged not known, Occ not known.

16. Kotha Raghavaiah, S/o. Veeraiah, aged not known, Occ not known, lT.Jarpula Mansingh, S/o. Lingya, aged not known, Occ not known,

18. Proddutoori Kashipati, S/o. Papaiah, aged at known., Occ not known,

19. Guguloth Kamittaiah, S/o. Bicha, aged not known, Occ not known, // / / / I I I I I i I

20.Guguloth Papa-, S/o. Jethya, aged not known, Occ not known' 21 . Guguloth Veeranna., S/o. Papa. aged not Known, Occ not known, 22.Guguloth Kamittiah, S/o. Bicha. aged not known Occ not known, 23.Banoth Ramkoti., S/o. Lacha. aged not known, Occ not known, 24.Banoth Sakaram, S/o. Rajya, aged not known, Occ not known, 25. Banoth Mogilli S/o. Bicha, aged not known, Occ not known, 26.Banoth Mangya, S/o Bicha, aged not known, Occ not known, 2T.JogiVeeraiah, S/o. Chinna Ramaiah, aged not known, Occ not Known' 28.Jogi Veeriah, S/o. Venkaiah, aged not known, Occ not known, 29. Gundlapally Nagendra, S/o. Achaiah, aged not known, Occ not known' 30.Ponnam Bixarn, S/o. Bhushaiah, aged not known, Occ not Known 31.Gajji Pedda Lingaiah, S/o Advaiah, aged not known. Occ not known'

32.Gajji Malliah, S/o Advaiah, aged not known, Occ not known, 33. Talla Venkanna, S/o. Narsiah, aged not known, Occ not known, 3a. Gajji Devaiah, S/o. Ramaswamy, aged not known, Occ not known, 35.Gajji Chinna Lingaiah, S/o, Ramaswarny, aged not known, Occ not known, 36.Udugula Veerabhadram, S/o Ramaiah, aged not known' Occ not known, 3T.Noomagada Satyanarayana, S/o. Veeraiah' aged not known' Occ not known, 38. Udugula Satyarn, S/o. Narahari, aged not known, not known 39.Gonda Siri Alivelu, Wo. Malliah. aged not known, Occ not known, 40. Nookala Guruvaiah, S/o. Pullaiah, aged not known, Occ not known,

41. Uppula Anjaiah, S/o. Bixamaiah, aged not known, Occ not known,

42.Upulao Mallaiah. S/o. Bixamaiah, aged not known, Occ not known,

43.Badeti Narsiah, S/o. Kotaiah, aged not known, Occ not known, a4. Galji Venkanna, S/o. Chinna Mallaiah, aged not known, Occ not known. 45.Arvapally Rammurthy, S/o. Venkaiah, aged not known, Occ not known, 46.Arvapally Sreenivas, S/o. Venkaiah, aged not known, Occ not known, 47 Arvapally Rangaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, aged not known, Occ not known, 48 Gokinapally Seetharamaiah, Sio. Veeraiah, aged not known' Occ not known,

49. Pasladi Uppalaiah, S/o. Kistaiah, aged not known, Occ not known,

50. Pasladi Kistaiah, S/o. Veeraiah. aged not known, Occ not known, (All are R/o.Chilkoyalapadu Village of Dornakal Mandal) ...Respondents/Petitioners / Appeal Under Section 54 of L.A. Act 1894 against the Award and decree dated 21 .04.2017 made in O.P.No.18 of 2006 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil judge, Mahabubabad. 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 Suit and upon hearing the arguments of GP for APPEALS, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows;

1. That the LAAS be and hereby is Partly allowed; 2. Thal the market value of the subject acquired lands be and hereby is modified from Rs.67,500/- per acre, as was fixed by the Reference Court, to Rs.45,000i- per acre;

3. That the claimants be and hereby are entitled to additional market value @ 12o/o pet annumi

4. That the remaining part of the impugned order of the Reference Court holds good,

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/- M. VIJAYA BHASKER JOINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Senior Civiljudge, Mahabubabad 2 Two CD Copies ,\I)K f1f HIGH COURT DATED:2810212025 DECREE LAAS.No.91 of 2018 I .$' v + '!/ o -t $ .3 PARTLY ALLOWING THE LAAS WITHOUT COSTS "'P*