Allowed

Srinivasulu Goud v. The Special Deputy Collector

Telangana HC22 Sept 2022LAAS/33/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal filed by landowners against the compensation awarded under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that despite the previous order enhancing compensation for the Srisailam Project, the same enhancement principle applies to the Priyadarshini Joorala Project as both are for irrigation purposes.

What did the court decide?

The market value of the houses and structures was enhanced by two more times (1+2) than the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, with all other consequential benefits as stipulated under the a

Srinivasulu Goud Vs The Special Deputy Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI)

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENI

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶5

L.A.A.S.NO: 33 OF 2017

¶6

Appeal Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the Judgment and Decree made in O.P.No.42 of 2015 Dated 18.03.20'13 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, lVahabubnagar District Between:

¶7

1- Srinivasulu Goud, S/o. Dattu Goud, 2. Anil Kumar Goud, S/o. Dattu Goud, 3. Raghavendra Goud, S/o. Shyamanthi Goud, 4. Parijathamma, W/o. Narasimhulu Goud,

¶8

Venkoji, S/o. Narsoji, 6. Laxmi, Wo. Chakali Raju, 7. V. Siddanna, S/o. Narsappa. 8. Ravindar Goud, Sh. Ramchandraiah Goud, 9. Sudarshan Goud, S/o. Ramchandraiah Goud, 10.K. Rakesh Goud, S/o.Ramchandraiah Goud, 11. Ramakrishna Goud, S/o. Ramchandraiah Goud, l2.Balaiah Goud, S/o. Savarappa Goud, 13.Ravi KumarGoud, S/o. Ramulu Goud, 14. Mounika Te.ia, W/o. Vijayakumar Goud, 15.Anandh Kumar Goud, S/o. Jayagopal Goud, 16. Bellow Laxman, S/o. Suwanna, 'l7. Narsimhulu, S/o. Bellow Laxman, 18.8. Balappa, S/o. Suwanna, 19. Girni Anjanna, S/o. Sugurappa, 20. M. Narsimhulu, S/1 ). Venkanna All Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Anugonda Village, Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶9

...APPE LLANTS/CLAIMANTS

¶10

AND

¶11

The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, PJP, Gadwal Mahabubnagar District.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶13

Counsel for the Appellants : SRl. S.VENKATESHWAR REDDY

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent : SRI D.KIRAN, AGP FOR APPEALS

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

TIIE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶17

AND

¶18

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

¶19

L.A.A.S.No.33 of 2017

¶20

COMMON JUDGMENT : (per Justice G. Sri Devi)

¶21

Tl-ri-s appcal is preferred by the claimants seeking enfrancement of compt:nsation au,arded b1. the Senior Civil Judge at Narayanpet (hereinafter referred to as..the reference Court,,) in L.A.O.p^No.42 of 2012. datcd i8.O3.2013. By the impugned order, the reierencc Court has au,ardcd the market valuc for the houses / structures of the <:laimants one time more (1+ i ) than rvhat rvas awarded bv t-he Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.34 of 2Oll, dated 10.I1.2O1t.

¶22

'lhc. houses and structures of the claimants situated in Anugonda Viltage, were acquired by the Government lor the purpose of submergence under Priyadarshini Joorala project, by issuing draft notihcation under Section a (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 g94 (for short "the Act") on 09.O9.2009. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisrtion Officer has passed al award on 10. i 1.201 1 fixing compensation for houses, structures and open places on the basis of prevailing rates as on the date of notification relying upon the valuation hxed by the requisition authority, Irrigation Department" The claimitnts having received the compensation under protest, sought for reference to the civil court under section 1g of the Act, seeking

¶23

¶24

)

¶25

(ist)..1 & MGl',..l I .rurs ll l0^{I 7}

¶26

enhancement of compensation.^{Bv the in-rpugncdordcr,thr: refcrence} Court has enhanced the^{marketr.alueol'rc nlore llme(i t 1) thanwhat} rvas awarded by the Land^{r\cquisition()fllccr-Sr:cl<ing lurther} cnhancement of compensation,^{the claimantsprefcrr<-'dthe present} appcal.

¶27

Hearci the learned counsel^{for the appcllants/ claimants and Sli} D.Kiran, learned Assistant^{Government Pleadcr for Appeals'Perused} the rnaterial available^{on record.}

¶28

The main contention of thc^{learncd counscl for thc claimantsis} that even uncler the^{Government Ordcrsi.c., G.O.Ms.No.234,dated} 15. 10.1993, marked as^{Ex.AS,the Governtnenthas passedorders} granting compensation i+2 times^{for the houses} /^{sLructLlrcs acquircd} in respect of Srisailam^{Project.It is submitteci [hal inasmuch as the} present acquisition of the houses/^{structures of the claimantsrvas also} for the purpose of irrigation^{project i-e., Priyadarshini JooralaProject,} Ex.AS is equally applies^{to the case of the claimants and therefore, the} learned counsel seeks^{to enhance the market value of the acquired} land 1+2 times than^{what was awarded by the L.A.O.}

¶29

The Assistant Government^{Pleadcrfor Appeals u'ouldsubmit} that the G.O. covered by^{Ex.AS was issucd in respectof Srisailam} project and whereas the^{presentacquisition pertainsto Priyadarshini}

¶30

I I

¶31

I I

¶32

CSI)..i & MGI'..I I.aus 3i l0 l 7

¶33

.Joorah J)r-ot('1 t. itrl rr,lrich no spccific G.{). rvas issiltC b1, the (loVC.nnL('r)i rrcl iirtr-r'lirrc, E:r.A5 cainnot be takcn int() ( i,lrsicicrati()n. lir: f'urtirer srii-.rnrts iilzrt as seerl frorn trx.A 1, the refercnc[ Court,^{i r-r} rcspect^{..)l' ,.--.lf!ier} .rcqi,isition in O.P.No.617 of 1999. has cnlianced thc m:rrkei r alrir b,,' one morc time than the value fixe,i bv tllc L.A.O As seen li-orn Er:.A2. ritrs Ccur'. in A.S.No.3375 of 2OOO h,]" .nr',fi.-",1 th. marker lir1,-rt' iixr d i:r Dx.A1 ar-rd therefore, he prays io disrniss thc appcai bi, r:onfirrning tl-rc market value fixed by the referencc Court.

¶34

A pe i-usal of the record discloses that the Government has issued orders orr 15. 10. i993, which was marked as Ex.As, ordering for enhancement o{ compensation two times more (1+2) than the value fixed by the L.A-O., in respect of the acquisition of structures that wcre acquired fcrr the purpose of Srisailam Project. It is the contention of the learne<l Assistant Government Pleader that this project is entirely different one and the said G.O. covered by Ex.AS which was issued for Srisailam project cannot be applied in the absence of any specific G.O. issued for l.hc present project. This Court is not inclined to accept the said contention lor the reason that the present acquisition proceedings also pertains to irrigation purpose.

¶35

[t is rclevant to refer clause (ii) of Ex.AS, which specifies that " the market ualue of the stntctures including uell ulhich has been treated as

¶36

¶37

( r\i)_ .l ,t \1(^jl,. .l I rrr,s^ll ll)l^,r

¶38

:;lt1Lcl1ffe bg^{the l,rutd Acrluisitionoff.cc:: in lti.s riurrtr,l:L, //r/ ircll.s. .silP</sup> siro1l be fLxed al tltee^{tinesthe ualttr: (1+)) (lelettttilrerl ltrl the l,ctncl} Accltrisitron OJJiccrs."^{Even t[-roughL]x.A5} lrt'r'tains^{lo tllc itcclt-lisit iot t} procci_,dings in rr:spect of Sriserilam^{Project,thc ber-rclit Ll-it:rr:oIcannot} bc rl,-:niecl to lhc^{presentappe llants on Ihc mere grouttti til']L th(l} prcsc,'rt proccedings pertair-ring^{to a difl'crcn'. projcctAllt:r::r11,boiil tht'} ac<luisition procccciings^{are for. the purltosc oiirrigilt ion prcr-it-cts.} .l.hcrclorc, basing on trx.A5 ttris court is irlclil'rr:d 1o t:llllatrcc tllC nrrrkct Value tr]' t\'o^{more tinle s than lhe villrtc lixccl l;r' t l.rt: L t'()'}}

¶39

I r-r the result, the^{appealis allowedenhancing thc mztrket valu<:} b), truo more times^{(1+2)than the valuc fixed by the L'A O' with all} other consequential benelits^{as stipulatedunder the amcndedAct'} There shall be no order^{as to costs.}

¶40

Pending miscellaneous^{applications, i[ any,shall stand closcd'}

¶41

Sd/.K.SRINIVASA o JOINT REGI RAR

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

(With Records)

¶46

'o',1.^{,n" Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet'.Mahabubnagar1i.strict} i. o;;-ci6^{sri s.veriGtesnw'ar nedav 'Advocate(oPUC)} 3. Two CCs^{to G.P t"r. Aip""irt' nig'h bdurttor tl'e Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad^(OUT)

¶47

4 Two CD CoPies

¶48

One^{SPare CoPY} ks .,

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210912022

JUDGMENT

e s'f AIt'
("1
q ()
.i)
11 \l[\ lw
oof A
i
t
,.. a: s. c Ai '. *!o

¶53

L.A.A.S.No.33 of 2017

¶54

Allowing the L.A.A.S Without costs.

¶55

(1)./..---<br>,tY\k
\ rl <br>)

¶56

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶57

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND^DAY OF^SEPTEIVBER TWO THOI.JSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶58

PRESENT

¶59

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI^DEVI AND

¶60

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶61

L.A.A.S.NO: 33 OF 2017

¶62

Between:

¶63

Srinivasulu Goud, S/o. Dattu Goud,

¶64

Anil Kumar Goud, Slo. Dattu Goud,

¶65

Raghavendra Goud, S/o. Shyamanthi^Goud,

¶66

Parijathamma, W/o. Narasimhulu Goud,

¶67

Venkoji, S/o. Narsoji,

¶68

Laxmi, W/o. Chakali Raju,

¶69

V- Siddanna, S/o. Narsappa.

¶70

Ravindar Goud, Sh. Ramchandraiah^Goud,

¶71

Sudarshan Goud, S/o. Ramchandraiah Goud,

¶72

10.K. Rakesh Goud, S/o.Ramchandraiah Goud,

¶73

1 1. Ramakrishna Goud, S/o. Ramchandraiah^Goud,

¶74

l2.Balaiah Goud, S/o. Savarappa Goud,

¶75

Ravi Kumar Goud, S/o. Ramulu Goud,

¶76

Mounika Teja, Wo. Vijayakumar Goud,

¶77

'15.Anandh Kumar Goud, S/o. Jayagopal Goud,

¶78

Bellow Laxman, S/o. Suvvanna,

¶79

'17. Narsimhulu, S/o. Bellow Laxman,

¶80

''lB. B. Balappa, S/o. Suvvanna,

¶81

Girni Anjanna, S/o. Sugurappa,

¶82

M. Narsimhulu, S/1). Venkanna

¶83

All Occupation :Agriculture, Rl/o. Anugonda^{Village, Makthal lVlandal,}

¶84

Mahabubnagar District'

¶85

...A''ELLANTS/.LATMANTS

¶86

AND

¶87

The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition^{Officer, PJP, Gadwal Mahabubnagar} District.

¶88

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition^{Act, 1894 against the} Judgment and Decree made in O.P.No.42 ot 2015^{Dated 18.03.2013 on the file of} the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet,^{Mahabubnagar District}

¶89

ORDER :This appeal coming on for hearing^{and upon perusingthe grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Cou( and^{the material papers in the}

¶90

case and^{upon hearinll the argumentsof Sri S'VenkateswaraReddy' ACvocatefor} the Appellants^{and of G P for Appeals'for the Respondent}

¶91

This Court^{doth Order and Decree as follows}

¶92

That^{tlre appeal be and hereby is allowed'}

¶93

fhalthe^{marketvalue is enhanced by two more times(1+2) thanthe} value fixed^{by the LI'O' ;th all other consequential benefits as} stiPrfut"O^{unierthe Amended Act'}

¶94

That^{there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal'}

¶95

Sd/.K.SRINIVASA JOINT^REGIS

¶96

//TRUE^COPYi/

¶97

SECTION^OFFICER

¶98

'"';+f"."f :",'""i[i:ifl?#313',3ffr"8#,i'1?il:tn:["TT:l,"sanaat Hvderabad^(OUT)

¶99

Triro^{CD CoPies}

¶100

One^{SPare CoPY}

^-,..--

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210912022

DECREE

L.A.A.S.No.33 ot 2017

¶107

Allowing the L.A.A.S Without costs.

¶108

l9)
m
1.,,
1(

Srinivasulu Goud v. The Special Deputy Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivasulu Goud v. The Special Deputy Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Land Acquisition Officer, Adilabad Dist. Vs Tallapalli Linga Rao and 37 Others

G.Vinod Kumar Reddy, Rr Dist Vs G.Suhasini, Hyd

The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Vs G.Jeeveshwar

Buggapally Sayamma Vs The Special Deputy Collector and 39 Others

Pothupalli Yadaiah, Vs The Special Deputy Collector (La)

J.Balaiah Vs The Special Deputy Collector (La)