The High Court · 2025

39. Smt. Gangawa, Wo. Naganna, Age:72 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Karegaon (LR of C-6)

40. Malla Reddy, S/o. Naganna, Age:52 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Karegaon (LRofC-6)

41. lndrasen Reddy, S/o.Naganna, Age:48 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Karegaon (LR of C-6)

42. Karnakar, S/o. Naganna, Age:42 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Karegaon (LR of c-6)

43. NarsaReddy, S/o. Naganna, Age:42 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Karegaon ( LR of C-6)

44. Smt. Mallavva, Wo. Kistanna, Age:64 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Karegaon (LRofC-8)

45.Chandrabai, Wo. Lasmanna, age:62 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Chinchala ( LR of C-24 ) ,.Respondents/Claimants l.A. NO: 2OF 201 1241 0F 20131 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 stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed in O.P.No.26l2000 dt.11.02.2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal, including execution proceedings in EP.No.26l2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal, pending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Appellant GP FOR APPEALS Counsel for the Respondents No.2 to 5, 7 to 8, 10 to 13, 15 to 22, 25 lo 27, 31 to 33, 36, 37, 39, 40 to 43,45: Sri V. Manohar Rao 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.53O of 2O 1_0 (per Hort'ble Snrt. Justice Tinntala Deui Dada) This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short'the ActJ is preferred by the special Deputy collector, Land Acquisition c)fficer, sRSI., pochampad, Nizamabad District, aggrieved by the order and decree dated rL.o2.2o I I passed in c.P.No.26 of 2000 by the learned Senior civil Judgc at Nirmal (hereinaftcr referred to as ,the Reference Court').

2. I'-or convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as thcy vvcre arrayed before the Ileference Court.

3. The lacts of ttre case in brief arc that the Executive Enginccr, IC & cAD III Division, Nirmal has filed requisition for acquiring agricultural lands at Karegaon, Gudur and Govindapur villages fcrr forrnation of new silt arresting tank across the local stream. As per the requisition, the draft notilication under section 4(1) of the Act \vas publislied in the Gazette on r\.0s. lgc)7 and that advance posscssion of the land was taken \ on T6-12.1994. Aftcr cr-rncllrcting duc cnquiry, the Land 2 AKS,] & ETD,J LAAS No.530_2013 Acquisition oflicer has passed an award granting compensation of Rs.20,000/- per acre apart from statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said award, a reference rffas sought and the same was referred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal.

4. At the time of enquiry, the petitioner/referring officer got examined himself as PWl and got marked the award copy as Ex.Pl and the claimants got examined RWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.Rl and R2.

5. The Reference court has framed the following points for determination ,rl Whether the compensation awardeci by the Land Acquisition Officer to the claimants needs any enhancement, if so, what would be just and reasonable compensation? 2 To what reliel?"

6. Based on the evidence on record, the Reference court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.46,2ool- per acre, in addition to the statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the special Deputy collector, LAO, Nizamabad. I 3 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.530 2013

7. Heard the submission of rearned Government pleader for the appellant and Sri v.Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. E. The learned Government pleader has submitted that the LAo has considered the potential of land and also has considered the sale transactions in the surrounding area and has fixed the land value @ Rs.2o,000/- per acre, which is just and reasonable and that therc was no necessity for the reference court to enhance the compensation. I-le therefore, prayed to set aside the same by allowing this appeal. 9- The learned respondent counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the poor farmcrs are aggrieved by the loss of land. . He further argued that in a similar acquisition for the purpose of silt arresting tank, the lands in Nirmal District were acquired and out of the notilication issued in 1996 for which also the LAo has fixed the land value @ Rs.2o,0 oo I - against which o.p.Nos.72 and 73 of 1998 were llled and that the reference court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.42,oo0/- per acre. He further submitted that in LAAS Nos.2l6 and 2lz ol 2oor, a challenge was made against the said award in o.p.No s.72 and, T3 of 199g and a Division Bench of this court has confirmed the award 4 i AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.530_2013 passed by the reference Court granting Rs.42,00O /- per acre. That in the present case, the reference Court has considered one year gap in the notifications and has enhanced the compensation by IO%o which is just and reasonable and therefore, has prayed to uphold the same.

10. Based on thc above rival submissions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1 2 3 Whe ther the compensation awarded by the refcrcnce Court is not just and reasonable? Whether the judgment and decree of the reference Court need any interference? To what relief? 1 1. POINT NO.1: a) The record discloses that the draft notilication is dated

13.03.1997 and the advance possession was taken on

16.12.1994, vyhilc the award of the LAo is dated 26.06.1997. It is also borne out by record that the agricultural lands were acquired at Karegaon Gudur and Govindapur villages of Adilabad district for formation of new silt arresting tank across the local stream. For the same purpose, a land was acquired in Kirgul and Bidrelly villages of Mudhole Mandal, Adilabad District and that the draft notification was dated 14.03.1996, which is one 5 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.530_2013 year prior to the present notification. In the said case, the LAO has awarded Rs.20,oo0/- per acre and the reference court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.42,o00/- per acre based on the evidence. The said copy o[ the award was marked as Ex.pl in the present case. b) The said award was conlirmed by a Division Bench of this High court vide LAAS Nos.216 and 2lr of 2oor vide orders dated

28.09-2oL3. Thus, relying upon the said orders, the reference court has considered the said amount of Rs.42,ooo I - per acre. c) rn Aho,sa,nul Hod.a v. stqte of Biharr, the Apex court has held that loo/o market value has to be added while awarding compensation when there is a time lag for a period upto an year. since, the present notilication is after one year when compared to that issue in o.P.Nos.72 and 73 of I99g, the reference court has given 1o7o escalation and has granted Rs.46,20o/- per acre, which is well reasoned. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the reference court and it is held that the compensation granted by the reference court is just and reasonable. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 'ArR 2013 sc 3463 \ \ \ \ 6 AKS,J & ETD,J LAAS No.530_2013

12. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned finding arrived at Point No. 1, this Court holds that the order and decree of the reference Court do not need any interference.

13. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order and decree dated ll.O2.2O 11 passed in O.P.No.26 of 2OO0 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. / / SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR I a //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal.(with records, if any) 2. Two CCs to GP FOR APPEALS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. One CC to SriV. Manohar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies kam/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 o i) ( * "tl'lE s 1 2 rrE[ 2l[5 z na';a'..r119. JUDGMENT+DECREE LAAS.No.S30 of 2013 DISMISSING OF THE APPEAL (y [ 3445l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANG AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVIEADA N FFIII Between: The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, SRSP Pochampad, Nizamabad District. ...AppellanUReferring Officer D 1. Vittal Rao, S/o. Narsing Rao, Age:36 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Karegaon Village.

2. Kamalakar Rao, S/o. Narsing Rao, Age:33 years, Occ: Agriculture Rl/o. Karegaon Village.

3. Muthubai, Wo. Rajanna, Age:72 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o' Karegaon Village.

4. K. Ram Reddy, S/o. Ganganna, Age:57 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Karegaon Village.

5. Narsa Reddy, S/o. Ganganna, Age:47 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Karegaon Village. Village.

6. Naganna, S/o. Muthenna, Age:72 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Karegaon Village ( died by LRs. C-39 to 43 )

7. Narsa Reddy, S/o. Muthenna, Age:68 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Karegaon

8. Nagawa, Wo. Ganganna , Age:77 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Karegaon Village ( died by LR.C44)

9. Narayan Reddy, S/o. Mallaiah, Age:47 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o.Karegaon Village.

10. Eranna, S/o. Narsimlu, Age'.77 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o.Karegaon Village 11. Kishtanna, S/o. Mallaiah, Age:57 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o.Karegaon Village.

12. Erranna, S/o. Mallaiah, Age:62 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o.Karegaon Village 13.R. Saya Reddy, S/o. Chinnaiah, Age:50 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Gudur Village.

14. Monaiah, S/o. Chinnaiah, Age:57 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Gudur Village (died by LR C-36 )

15. Ramanna, S/o. Chinnaiah , Age:47 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Gudur Village 16. Narsa Reddy, S/o. Chinnaiah, Age:44 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o' Gudur Village

17.Vittal, S/o. Chinnaiah , Age'.42 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Gudur Village

18. Bhasker, S/o. Bhoom Reddy, Age:38 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Gudur Village

19.P. Mohan Reddy, S/o. Narsa Reddy, Age:60 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Gudur Village

20. Ramachander Reddy, S/o. Govind Reddy, Age:57 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Gudur Viltage 21 . Narsa Reddy, S/o. Pothanna, Age:47 years ('Guardian of Minor Rajashekar Reddy S/o. Narsa Reddy ) R/o. Gudur Village

22.P. Bhoomanna, S/o. Lasmanna, Age:40 years, R/o. Govindpur 23.Nadpi Lasmanna, S/o. Bhojanna, Age:62 years, R/o. Govindpur 24.Lasmanna, S/o. Bhojanna, Age:62 years, R/o. Govindpur ( Died by LR C-45 ) 25.Lasmanna, S/o. Bhojanna, Age:62 years, R/o. Govindpur 26.Sayanna, S/o. Narsimlu, Age:72 years, R/o. Govindpur 27. Bhoomanna, S/o. Hanmandlu, Age:57 years, R/o. Govindpur 28. Bhoomanna ( Chinna ), S/o. Hanmandlu, Age:47 years, R/o. Govindpur ( Died by LR C-37 )

29. Pochamma, Wo.Adellu, Age:62 years, R/o. Govindpur ( Died by LR C-38 ) 30. Omanna, S/o. Pothanna, Age:52 years, R/o.Govindpur 31. Pandari, S/o. Pothanna, Age:47 years, R/o. Govindpur 32. Hanmandlu, S/o. Pothanna, Age:47 years, R/o. Govindpur 33.Hanmandlu, S/o. Ashanna, Age:47 years, R/o. Govindpur 34. Linga Reddy, S/o. Pothanna, Age'.77 yeas, R/o. Govindpur 35. Bhojaiah, S/o. Rajappa, Age:72 years, R/o. Govindpur ( Died abated LR of C-

36. Raola Saya Reddy, S/o. Monaiah, Age:50 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Edbid 37. Pushpala, Wo. Bhumanna, Age:57 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Chinchala Village ( LR of C-28 )

38. Laxman, S/o. Adellu, Age:57 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Venkatapur ( LR of 14) c-29 )

39.Smt. Gangawa, Wo. Naganna, Age:72 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Karegaon (LR of C-6)

40. Malla Reddy, S/o. Naganna, Age:52 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Karegaon (LRofC-6) 4l.lndrasen Reddy, S/o.Naganna, Age:48 years, Occ: Agriculture R:/o. Karegaon (LR of C-6)

42. Karnakar, S/o. Naganna, Age:42 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Karegaon (LR of c-6)

43. Narsa Reddy, S/o. Naganna, Age:42 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Karegaon ( LR of C-6)

44.Smt. Mallawa, Wo. Kistanna, Age:64 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Karegaon

45. Chandrabai, Wo. Lasmanna, age:62 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Chinchala (LRofc-8) ( LR of c-24 Appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act of 1894 against the order and decree dated 11-02-2011 passed in o.p.No.26 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal. ..Respondents/craimants This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the materiat papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of GP FOR APPEALS for the Appellant and of Sri v. Manohar Rao, Advocate forthe respondents No.2 to 5, 7, g, 10 to 13, 15 to 22, 25 to 27 , 31 to 33, 36, 37, 40 to 43, 45. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: f . inrt tn" appeal be and hereby is dismissed upholding the order and decree dated 11-02-2011 passed in O.P.No.26 of 2000 by the Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal; and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal 2. Two CD Copies w HIGH COURT DATED:27106t2025 DECREE LAAS.No.S30 of 2013 DISMISSING OF E t\