Allowed

Gounikadi Golla Ramulu v. The Spl. Dy. Collector, L.a., Rajeev Lift Irrigation

Telangana HC20 Sept 2022LAAS/392/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compensation for land acquired for a lift irrigation scheme was enhanced to three times the Land Acquisition Officer's valuation. The court allowed all appeals with consequential statutory benefits, excluding interest for the respective delays in filing the appeals. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

Market value enhanced to three times the Land Acquisition Officer's valuation, with consequential statutory benefits, excluding interest for the respective appeal-filing delay periods.

Gounikadi Golla Ramulu Vs The Spl. Dy. Collector, L.a… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²⁸¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

LA.AS NOSj 179.270,392.439. aal.482 AND 492 OF 2016

¶7

L.A.A.S NO: 179 OF 2016

¶8

Appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against order and decree dated 21-04-2014 passed in O.P.No.225 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy

¶9

Between:

¶10

Boya Devaiah, S/o. Ramulu

¶11

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶12

AND

¶13

The Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A. Rajeev Lift lrrigation, Scheme-Phase-ll, Pebbair, Mahabubnagar District.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI V MANOHAR RAO

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR APPEALS

¶17

L.A.A.S NO: 270 OF 20{6

¶18

Appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act order and d_ecree daled 23-04-2O14^passed in O.P.No.423 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy

¶19

Between:

¶20

Masamma, Wo.Boya Pentanna

¶21

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶22

AND

¶23

The Spl. f y. Collector, L.A Rajeev Lift lrrigation,^Scl- errne-Phase-ll, Pebbair, Mahabubr agar District.

¶24

...RESP()t\IDENT/RESPONDENT

¶25

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI V MANOHAR RAO

¶26

Counsel for the lespondent: GP FOR APPEALS

¶27

L.A.A.S NO: 392 OF 2016

¶28

Appeal file d under Section 54 of Land Acquisition l.(l order and decree dated 21-02-201 )^passed in O.P.No.139 of 2012 on the^fi e of the Court of the Senior Civil Judg e at Wanaparthy

¶29

Between:

¶30

Gounikadi lolla Ramulu, S/o Pentaiah

¶31

...4 PPEL.LANT/CLAIMANT

¶32

AND

¶33

The Spl D'. Collector, L.A. Rajeev Lift lrrigation, Schr:tr e-F'hase-ll, Pebbair, Mahabubn; rgar District.

¶34

...RESPC NDENT/RESPONDENT

¶35

Counsel for the /,ppellant: SRI V MANOHAR RAO

¶36

Counsel for the I lespondent: GP FOR APPEALS

¶37

L.A.A.S NO: 439 )F 2016

¶38

Appeal file, I under Section 54 of Land Acquisition A,;i order and decree dated 09-03-201t passed in O.P.No.75 ot 2014 on the file of^the, Court of the Senior Civil Judgr. at Wanaparthy

¶39

Between:

¶40

R.Naras mha Reddy, S/o.Kista Reddy

¶41

Pothulal ally Shanthamma, Wo. Ramulu

¶42

G-Ravin ler Goud, S/o.Balaiah Goud

¶43

P.Uppar Lax.ni, D/o.Ramulu

¶44

...At,t-trLLAN t5rU,-fr. vl/\N tD Ir J, 6 6. C:'

¶45

AND

¶46

The Spl. Dy.^rlollector, L.A. Rajeev Lift lrrigatron,^{Stlrr:mer-Phase-ll,} Pebbair, tvlahabubnagar District.

¶47

...RESPOt{DENT/RESPONDENT

¶48

Regula Srinivasulu, S/o Moulali, 3. Shekar Goud, S/o Bala Goud, 4. Telugu Kothakota Boya Laxmi, S/o Manyam 5. Telugu Kothakota Boya Thirupathi, S/o Manyam 6. Boya Bala Peeramma,, Wo.Ramulu, 7. Pothupalli Yadaiah,, S/o.Ramulu 8. P.Gandhi, S/o Ramulu, age 50 years; 9. P.Satyanarayana, S/o Ramulu, 10. Pothulapalli Pentaiah, S/o Jambulaiah, 1 1. Pothulapalli Ashok, S/o Jambulaiah, 12.Bal Reddy, S/o R.Venkat Reddy (died) per L. Rs. Claimants NO. 15 to 17 and 61

¶49

R.Sunitha, Wo Rajeshwar Reddy, 14. R.Ashok Reddy, S/o R.Bal Reddy, 15.R.Aravind Reddy, S/o R.Bal Reddy, 16. R.Venkatamma, Wo Kista Reddy, '17. R.Sudhakar Reddy, Wo Kista Reddy, '18.R.Gopal Reddy, Wo Kista Reddy, 'l9.R.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Wo Kista Reddy, 20.Telugu Kotha Ramulu, S/o Chinna Naganna, 21.Aloor Boya Bal Raju, S/o Ramulu 22.Yakiti Telugu Sukkamma, W/o Karrenna, 23.Boya Buggapalli Venkatamma, S/o Bal Ram, 24. Pothulapalli Uppari Raju, S/o Bala Ram, 25. Pothulapalli Ramulu, S/o Hanumanth, 26. Bakka Laxmaiah, S/o Hanumanth, 27.R. Surendranath Reddy,, S/o.Kishta Reddy. 28.Golla Ramulu, Wo Yerra Balaiah, 29. J.Bakkaiah, S/o Pentaiah,

¶50

30.Venkataiah, S/o Pedda Balaiah,

¶51

31 . Pasulu Boya Ramulu, S/o Balaiah, age 32 years

¶52

Buggapalli Ravi, S/o Kondanna, age 32 years

¶53

Chandra Kala,, Wo.Ravinder Gound

¶54

Rajesl'war Reddy,,^{S/o.PadmanabhaReddy}

¶55

Ragott am tleddy, S/o.Padmanabha^Reddy 36. Ralesh war lleddy, S/o.Padmanabha^Reddy 37. Ragotl- am Reddy, S/o.Padmanabha^Reddy 38. Naroth rm Reddy,, S/o.Padmanabha^Reddy 39. Naroth rm R.eddy,, S/o.Padmanabha^Reddy 40. Rajesh uar Reddy,, S/o.Padmanabha Reddy 41. Narothi rm Reddy,, S/o.Padmanabha Reddy 42. Ragoth am Reddy, S/o Padmanabha^Reddy 43.Rajesh var Reddy,, S/o.Padmanabha Reddy 44. Naroth: rm Reddy,, S/o Padmanabha^Reddy 45. Ragoth lm Reddy, S/o.Padmanabha^Reddy 46.Ravula Janardhan Reddy, S/o^{Bucha Reddy} 47.Ravula Janardhan Reddy,, S/o.Bucha^Reddy 48.Ravula Janardhan Reddy,, S/o.Bucha^Reddy

¶56

49.Vrjaya I axm , Wo R.PrathaP^ReddY,

¶57

50.Chandr r Shekhar Reddy,^{S/o Bucha Reddy,}

¶58

5'1.Vilaya I axm , Wo R.PrathaP^ReddY,

¶59

52.Chandr,r Shekhar Reddy,^{S/o Bucha Reddy,}

¶60

53.Vijaya L axmi, Wo R.Prathap^Reddy,

¶61

54.Chandr;r Shekar Reddy, S/o^{Bucha Reddy,}

¶62

Jyothi, <sup>y'/o Ravinder Gound 56.Telugu llotha Venkataiah,^{S/o Savaraiah} 57. B.padm r, Wo Bandenna,

¶63

R.Savitt ramma, Wo^{R.Bal Reddy,} (R2 to F 58 are not necessary^parties)

¶64

...RESPONDENTS

¶65

Counsel for the I^ppellants: SRI^{V MANOHAR RAO}

¶66

Counsel for the F espondent^{No.1 : GP FOR APPEALS}

¶67

L.A.A.S NO: 481 OF 2016

¶68

Appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act order and decree dated 20-03-2013 passed in O.P.No.303 ot 2012 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy

¶69

Between:

¶70

Venkatesh, S/o-Manyam

¶71

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶72

AND

¶73

The Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A. Rajeev Lift lrrigation, Scheme-Phase-ll, Pebbair, Mahabubnagar District.

¶74

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶75

Gounsel for the Appellant: SRI V MANOHAR RAO

¶76

Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR APPEALS

¶77

L.A.A.S NO: 482 OF 2016

¶78

Appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act order and decree dated 03-06-2014 passed in O.P.No.58 of 2O13 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy

¶79

Between:

¶80

Boya Buggepally Kashanna, S/o.Yellanna

¶81

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶82

AND

¶83

The Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A. Rajeev Lift lrrigation, Scheme-Phase-ll, Pebbair, Mahabubnagar District.

¶84

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶85

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI V MANOHAR RAO

¶86

Counsel forthe Respondent: GP FOR APPEALS

¶87

L.A.A.S NO: 492 OF 2016

¶88

Appeal fil, rd under Section 54 of Land Acquisition^{/\cl or'lerand decree} dated 20-03-201 3^passed in O.P.No.326^{of 2012 on the f l: of .he Court of the} Senior Civil .lud1 e at Wanaparthy

¶89

Between:

¶90

P.Savaraii h, Srb.Jambulaiah

¶91

...I,PPE1.LANT/CLAIMANT

¶92

AND

¶93

The Spl. D /. Collector, L.A. Rajeev Lift lrrigation,^Sch :nre-[)hase-ll,^Pebbair, Mahabubn rgar District.

¶94

...RESPC'NDENT/RESPONDENT

¶95

Counsel for the , \ppellant: SRI V. MANOHAR RAO

¶96

Counsel for the llespondent: GP FOR APPEALS

¶97

The Court delive^'ed the foilowing: COMMON JUDGMENI

¶98

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE^{G. SRI DEVI}

¶99

AND

¶100

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE^{M.G. PRIYADARSINI}

¶101

L.A.A.S.No.179 270 392^{439481442alnd 492 of 2OL6}

¶102

COMMON JUDGMENT:^{(per Justice G. Sri Devi)}

¶103

The lis in this batch^{of Appeals preferred by the claimants} pertain to common acquisition^{proceedingsand therefore,they} are heard together^{and beingdisposed of by this common} judgment.

¶104

t \

¶105

Heard learned counsel^{for the claimants and Sri D'Kiran'} learned Assistant Government^{Pleader for the respondent'} Perused the material^{available on record.}

¶106

The present acquisition^{was for the purpose of Rajeev Lift} Irrigation Scheme, Phase-II,^{Pebbair,which is ancillary project of} Priyadarshini Joorala^{Project. This Courtuide judgment,dated} ti.Og .2022 has already^{elaboratelyalalysed the evidence and} considered the identical^{issue raised inthese appeals in} L.A.A.S.No.4 of 20 16.^{Both the counsel havenot disputedthe} factum of commona-litv^{of the evidenceand the issue in these} appeals and in^{L.A A.S'No.4of 2016' whereinthis Cotrrt has} allowed the appeal enhancing^{the market value by two more}

¶107

¶108

¶109

trrnes^{(L rl2) than thc vzllue iixed lly the L A Orr itir iLll othr:r} conscquenti^{rl br:nelitsas stipulated under the} '^{lr enrlcdAct}

¶110

The ref^{rre, following the judgment passedlry 1'his Courtin} L.A.A.S.Ncr.4^{of 2016, datecl15'09 '2022 and l'or the reasons} statcd thcre^{n, eLll these appeals standa-llo"vedll''z el-rhancingtht:} market valu :^{of the acquired lancl by two mor( rimes (l +2) than} the valtte fix:cl^{t,y thc L.r'Ouzith ali otherconstr'llienlial bcnefits} as srj.pr.t1:tte<^{rtrldcr the amended Act' No ordcrrtl; to (rosts'}

¶111

N4iscelr al'cot-rs llctiLions,^{if any, shall sternc <:ioscd}

¶112

I;,C/-EI.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGIST R //TRUE^COPY//

¶113

SECTIO OFFICER

¶114

To, 1. The Senior^{CivilJudge at Wanaparthy (with reco-rds)}

¶115

Two COs^{k,theGP tor nppeats,High iourt for the St;rr) of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶116

g. O'"" CC to Sri V'. Manohar Rao'^Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD^Ct Pies

¶117

(along with a copy^{of the judgment in L'A'A'S'No'4 of 2016' dated 15-09'20221}

plp

HIGH GOURT

DATED:2010912022

COMMON JTIDGMENT

L.A.A.S NOS: 179, 270,392, 439, 481,^{4$2 AND} 492 0F 2016

¶123

ALLOWING'I'HE ALL L.A.A.S'S lv

¶124

qn o \1 \

¶125

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE^{G. SRI DEVI}

¶126

AND

¶127

THE HON'BLE SMT. WSTICE^{M.G.PRTYADARSINI}

¶128

L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2O16

¶129

COMMON JUDGMENT:^(per Justice^{G. Sri Devi)}

¶130

This appeal is^preferred by the claimants^{seeking enhancement} of compensation awarded by^{the Senior Civil Judge at Narayanpet} (hereinafter referred to as "the reference^{Court") in L.A.O.P.No.47of} 2012, dated 19.O3.2013. By the^{impugned order,the reference Court} has awarded the market^{value for tJ:e houses/ structuresof the} claimants one time more^{(1+l) than what was awardedby the Land} Acquisition Officer in Award^{No.34of 2011, dated10. I 1.2011.}

¶131

The houses and structures of the^{claimants situatedin} Anugonda Village, were^{acquired by the Governmentfor the purposeof} submergence under Priyadarshini^{Joorala Project, by issuing draft} notification under Section^{a (1) of the l,and Acquisition Act, 1894 (for} short "the Act") on O9.O9.2OO9.^{After due enquiry,the Land} Acquisition Offrcer has^{passed an award on1O.11.2O11 fixing} compensation for houses,^{structures and open placeson the basis of} prevailing rates as on the^{date of notificationrelying upon the} valuation hxed by the^{requisition authority, IrrigationDepartment'} The claimants having received^{the compensationunder protest, sought} for reference to the civil^{Courtunder Section18 of the Act,seeking}

¶132

¶133

-iiiD.J&MGP,J Laas 4 2016

¶134

enhancenrent of compensation. By the impugnt:d order, the^reference Court has; en eanced the market value one time^{more (l+1)} than^what wers au,arder by the Land Acquisition Of{icer.^{S t:eki} rg further enhancement of compensation, the claimants^preferre 1 t;1e^present appeal.

¶135

Heard t ee learned counsel for the appellants,/ clirirnar. ts and Sri D.Kiran, learr ed Assistant Government Pleader lor^{Ap p::als.} Pemsed the material a railable on record.

¶136

The ma n contention of the learned counst l for¹ Iu: cl:rimants^is that even un< ler the Government Orders i,e.,^(i.O.M:i I'1o.234, dated 15.10. 199i1, r rark,:d as Ex.A6, the Government has ;:assed orders granting comg ensation 1+2 times for the houses/strur:^'.rres acquired in respect of I risarlam Project. It is submitted that^inz.r: much as the present acquis ition of the houses/ structures of the clai:::.ants also for the purpose rf irrigation^project i.e., Priyadarshini^J or:,ralil^Project, Ex.A6 is cqual y applies to the case of the claimarits^an{1 therefore, the learned coun iel seeks to enhance the market vr:-lue of the compensiition⁺² times than what was awarded by the^1.,1.O.

¶137

The Assr stant Government Pleader for Appeals rr:ukl submit that the G.O. :overed by Ex.A6 was issued in^respec t of^llrisailam project and wh:reas the present acquisition pertains tc I:riyadarshini

¶138

¶139

GSD,J&MGP,J Laas 4 2016

¶140

Joorala^{Project,for which no specificG'O' was issued by the} Government^{and therefore, Ex'A6 cannot be takeninto consideration'} He further^{submitsthat as seenfrom Ex'Al' the referenceCourt' in} respect of^{earlier acquisitionin O'P'No'611 of 1999'has enhanced the} market^{valueby one time more than the value frxed by the L'A'O'As} seen from^{Ex.A2, this Courtin A S'No3375 of 2O0O hasconfirmedthe} market^{value fixed in Ex'Al'Even the Apex Court' as seen from} Ex.A3, has^{dismissedthe appeal conlirmingtJ.e fixation of the said} market value^{by the reference Court' Therefore' the learnedAssistant} Government^{Pleaderfor Appeals're\ring on Ex'A3'submits that the} market value^{frxed by ttre referenceCourtis based on evidenceand} needs no interference^{by this Court'}

¶141

A perusal^{of the recorddisclosesthat in respect of the earlier} acquisition^{proceedingspertainingto Gaddampally Hlo' Anugonda} Village, the^{referenceCourt has passedordersin O'P'No'29 of 2OO4} and Batch,^{dated 23.O1'2O06enhancingthe market value by onetime} more ttran^{the value fixed by the L'A'O' The said order was marked as} Ex.Alo.Inasmuchasthepresentacquisitionproceedingsrelatesto the adjacent^{villagecoveredby Ex'A1O'the referenceCourt relyingon} Ex.Alohasfixedthemarketvaluebyonetimemorethantlrevalue frxed by^{the L.A.O.The recordfurtherdisclosesthat the Government} has issued^{orders on 15'10'i993' which was markedas Ex'A6'}

¶142

¶143

¶144

:i:;D,J&MGP,J Laas 4 2016

¶145

ordering for^, inhancement of compensation two times tLore (1+2) than the value fixr d by the L.A.O., in respect of the acquisil ic n oj'structures that were ac( uired for the purpose of Srisailam proje,:: Although the learned Assi rtant Government Pleader submits tha . :his project is entirely differ ent ,rne and the said G.O. covered by I)x.A6 which was issued for Sr sailrr.m project cannot be applied in the absence of any specific G.O. ssued for the present project, this Court s; not inclined to accept the said ccrntention for the reason that the pr(.rn:)nt acquisition proceedings so pertains to Irrigation purpose. E)Jen the other contention ol the learned Assistant Government plerrl.er that under Ex.A3, the A;ex rCourt has confirmed the earlier fixa.t.ion of market value by refer:nce Court by one more time (1+1) than tfre one fixed by the L.A,O. a rd therefore, the present enhancement marle by the reference Cor rt which is in tune with Ex.A3 cannot l:r: disturbed is also unsustz inable for the reason that Ex.A6 ir;r;uerl by the Government I ranting 1+2 has not been brought to Ure notice of the Apex Court.

¶146

7 . It is rele '/ant to refer clause (ii) of Ex.A6, which s1 g::ifres that.the market ualue t'f thet struchtres including u.tell which has ltzen treated. as structure bg tl .e Lo.nd Acquisition Officer in his auard; tr,.d house sites shall be fixed at three times the ualue (1+2) determin,zd. bg the Land Acquisition OJ_icers;. " Even though Ex.A6 pertains to tlre acquisition

¶147

¶148

GSD,J&MGP,J Laas 4 2016

¶149

proceedings in respect of Srisailam Project, the benefit thereof cannot be denied to the^present appellants on^{the mereground thatthe} present proceedings pertaining to a different^project. After all,^{both the} acquisition proceedings are for the^purpose of^{irrigationprojects.} Therefore, basing on Ex.A6, this Court is^inclined to^{enhance the} market va.lue by two more times than^{the va-lue ltxed by the L.A.O.}

¶150

In the result, the appeal is allowed^{enhancingthe market value} by two more times^{(1+2)than theva.luehxed by the L.A.O. with all} other consequential benefits^{as stipulatedunder the amendedAct.} There shall be no order as to costs.

¶151

Pending miscellaneous applications,^{if any, shallstandclosed.}

¶152

JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶153

WSTICE M.G. PRTYN)ARSINI

¶154

15.O9.2022 gkv/tsr

¶155

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶156

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶157

PRESENT

¶158

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

¶159

L.A.A.S NO: 179 OF 2016

¶160

Between l

¶161

Boya Devaiah, S/o. Ramulu

¶162

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶163

AND

¶164

The Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A. Rajeev Lift lrrigation, Scheme-Phase-ll,^Pebbair,' Mahabubnagar Diskict.

¶165

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶166

Appeal filed under Section 54 of Land^{AcquisitionAct orderand decree of} the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at^{Wanaparthy passed in O.P.No.225of 2013'} daled 21-04-2014

¶167

ORDER : This appeal coming on^{for hearing, upon perusingthe groundsof} appeal, the Judgment and Decree of^{the Lower Court and the material papers in OP} and upon hearing the arguments Sri V.Manohar^{Rao, Advocatefor the Appellant} and of the Government Pleader for Appeals^{for the respondent}

¶168

This court while following the^{judgmentin L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2016dated} 15-09-2022 and for the reasons stated therein,^{doth order and decreeas follows:-} . 1. That the appeal be and hereby is allowed;

¶169

That the market value of the acquired^{land be and hereby is enhanced by two} more times(1+2) than the value fixed by^{the L.A.O,with all other consequential} benefits as stipulated under the amended^Act

¶170

That the cla mant be and hereby is not entifled to clairr ink)rest for the delay period of 7( 5 days in preferring the appeal as spe<:ifically ordered by this Court while r ondoning the delay: and

¶171

That there br r no order as to costs in this appeal

¶172

!id/-B.s.cHtRANJ VI JOINT REGIS R

//TRUE COPY//

,L SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Senior Civil J rdge, at Wanaparthy,

¶177

Two C.D Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010912022

DECREE

L.A.A.S NO: 179 OF 2016

¶184

ALLOWING'THE L.A.A.S WITHOUT CI)STS tr\ \5^v\Lr

¶185

¶186

tN THE HIGH COURT FOR, THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶187

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAYPF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENWTWO

¶188

PRESENT

¶189

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

¶190

L.A.A.S NO: 270 OF 2016

¶191

Between:

¶192

Masamma, Wo.o.Boya Pentanna

¶193

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶194

AND

¶195

The Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A. Rajeev Lift lrrigation, Scheme.Phase-ll, Pebbair, Mahabubnagar District.

¶196

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶197

Appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act order and decree of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy^passed in O.P.No.423 of 2012,

¶198

dated 23-04-2014

¶199

ORDER : This appeal coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the^grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material^papers in^OP and upon hearing the arguments Sri V.Manohar Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of the Government Pleader for Appeals for the respondent

¶200

This court while following the^judgment in L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2016 dated 15-09-2022 and forthe reasons stated therein, doth order and decree as follows:1. That the appeal be and hereby is allowed;

¶201

That the market value of the acquired land be and hereby is enhanced by two more times('l+2) than the value fixed by the L.A.O, with all other consequential benefits as stipulated under the amended Act

¶202

That the clai nant be and hereby is not entitled to clai l interest for the delay period of 68 I days in preferring the appeal as spec iir:ally ordered by thls Court while c cndoning the delay: and

¶203

That there br no order as to costs in this appeal

¶204

Tid,I-B. S.CH IRANJEEVI JoINr REGTSTFAR /ffRUE COPY// //

f/ \L

SEGTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Senior Civil J rdge, at Wanaparthy,

¶209

Two C.D. Copies

HIGH COUFT

DATED:2010912022

DECREE

L.A.A.S NO: 270 OF 2016

¶215

ALLOWING^..HE L.A.A.S WITHOUT C0STS @(' \

¶216

¶217

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶218

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry TWO

¶219

PRESENT

¶220

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

¶221

L.A.A.S NO: 392 OF 2016

¶222

Between:

¶223

Gounikadi Golla Ramulu, S/o. Pentaiah

¶224

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶225

AND

¶226

The Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A. Rajeev Lift lrrigation, Scheme-Phase-ll, Pebbair, Mahabubnagar Diskict.

¶227

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶228

Appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act order and decree of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy^passed in O. P.No.1 39 ot 2012, daled 21-02-2013.

¶229

ORDER : This appeal coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material^papers in^OP and upon hearing the arguments Sri V.Manohar Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of the Government Pleader for Appeals for the respondent

¶230

This court while following the^judgment in L.A.A.S.No.4 of 20'16 dated 15-Og-2}22and for the reasons stated therein, doth order and decree as follows:-

¶231

That the appeal be and hereby is allowed;

¶232

That the market value of the acquired land be and hereby is enhanced by two more times(1+2) than the value fixed by the L.A.O, with all other consequential benefits as stipulated under the amended Act

¶233

That the clai nant be and hereby is not entitled to clai rr interest for the delay period of 11 ]6 days in preferring the appeal as spe<:ifically ordered by this Court while c rndoning the delay: and

¶234

That there br no order as to costs in this appeal

¶235

Si.J,I.B.S.CHIRANJE JOI1NT REGIS T R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1. The Senior Civil J rdge, at Wanaparthy,

¶240

Two C,D. Copies

I t

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010112022

DECREE

L.A.A.S NO: 392 OF 2016

¶247

ALLOWING THE L.A.A.S WITHOUT CC STS /'7-\ (r) (r: 71 \ n ,

¶248

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE SIATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶249

TUESDAY, THE^{TWENTIETHDAYOF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^ANDTWENWTWO

¶250

PRESENT

¶251

THE HONOURABLE^{JUSTICE G SRI DEVI} AND

¶252

THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUST]CE M.G,PRIYADARSINI}

¶253

L.A.A .S NO: 439^{OF 2016}

¶254

Between:

¶255

R.Narasimha Reddy,^{S/o.KistaReddy}

¶256

Pothulapally Shanthamma,^{Wo. Ramulu}

¶257

G.Ravinder Goud,^{S/o.BalaiahGoud}

¶258

P.Uppari Laxmi, D/o.Ramulu

¶259

...APPELLANTS'CLAIMANTS^{1, 3, 8 & 59}

¶260

AND

¶261

1 The Spl. Dy. Collector,^{L.A. RajeevLift lrrigation, Scheme-Phase-ll,} Pebbair, Mahabubnagar^District.

¶262

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶263

Regula Srinivasulu,^{S/o Moulali,}

¶264

ShekarGoud, S/o^{Bala Goud,}

¶265

Telugu Kothakota Boya^{Laxmi, S/o Manyam}

¶266

Telugu Kothakota^{Boya Thirupathi, S/o Manyam}

¶267

Boya Bala Peeramma,,^Wo.Ramulu,

¶268

Pothupalli Yadaiah,,^S/o.Ramulu

¶269

P.Gandhi, S/o Ramulu,^{age 50 years;}

¶270

P.Satyanarayana, S/o^Ramulu,

¶271

Pothulapalli Pentaiah,^{S/o Jambulaiah,}

¶272

1 1 . Pothulapalli^{Ashok,S/o Jambulaiah'}

¶273

12.Bal Reddy,^{S/o R.VenkatReddy(died) per L. Rs. Claimants NO' 15 to 17} and 61

¶274

13.R.Sunitha,^{WoRajeshwarReddY,}

¶275

R.Ashok Reddy,^{S/o R.Bal Reddy, .-}

¶276

'l5.R.Aravind Reddy, S/o R.Bal Reddy' . .r1,. :.,

¶277

'16. R.Venkata mma, Wo Kista ReddY' '17. R.Sudhak rr Reddy, Wo Kista Reddy, 18.R.Gopat F eddy, Wo Kista^ReddY, 19. R.Vishnur ardhan Reddy, Wo^{Kista Reddy,} 20. Telugu Kc tha Ramulu,^{S/o Chinna Naganna,} 21.Aloor Boy r Bal Raju, S/o Ramulu 22.Vaklli Telt^gu Sukkamma, Wo^Karrenna, 23.Boya Bugr lapalli^{Venkatamma, S/o Bal Ram,} 24. Pothulapa^li Uppari^{Raju, S/o Bala Ram,} 25. Pothulapa^Ii Ramulu,^{S/o Hanumanth,} 26. Bakka Larnaiah, S/o Hanumanth, 27.R. Surend anath Reddy,, S/o.Kishta^Reddy. 28. Golla Ran ulu, Wo^{Yerra Balaiah,} 29. J.Bakkaiat, S/o Pentaiah, 30. Venkataial r, S/o Pedda^Balaiah, 31. Pasulu Bo^ra Ramulu,^{S/o Balaiah, age 32 years} 32. Buggapalli Ravi, S/o Kondanna,^{age 32 years} 33. Chandra X ala,, Wo.Ravinder^Gound 34. Rajeshwar Reddy,, S/o.Padmanabha^Reddy 35. Ragotham Reddy, S/o.Padmanabha^Reddy 36. Raleshwar Reddy, S/o.Padmanabha^Reddy 37. Ragotham Reddy, S/o.Padmanabha^Reddy 38. Narotham teddy,, S/o.Padmanabha^Reddy 39. Narotham leddy,, S/o.Padmanabha^Reddy 40. Rajeshwar Reddy,, S/o.Padmanabha^Reddy 41. Narotham^I leddy,, S/o.Padmanabha^Reddy 42.Ragotham leddy, S/o.Padmanabha^Reddy

¶278

Rajeshwar Reddy,, S/o.Padmanabha^Reddy

¶279

Narotham lleddy,, S/o.Padmanabha^Reddy

¶280

45.Ragotham ieddy, S/o.Padmanabha^Reddy 46. Ravula Jan ardhan Reddy,^{S/o.Bucha Reddy}

¶281

Ravula Jan ardhan^{Reddy,, S/o.Bucha Reddy}

¶282

48.Ravula Janardhan Reddy,,^{S/o.Bucha Reddy}

¶283

49.Vijaya Laxmi, Wo R.Prathap^Reddy, 50.Chandra Shekhar Reddy,^{S/o Bucha Reddy,}

¶284

51.Vijaya Laxmi, Wo R.Prathap^Reddy,

¶285

52.Chandra Shekhar^{Reddy,S/o Bucha Reddy,}

¶286

53.Vriaya Laxmi, Wo^{R.PrathapReddy,}

¶287

54.Chandra Shekar^{Reddy,S/o Bucha Reddy'}

¶288

55.Jyothi, Wo Ravinder^Gound

¶289

56.Telugu Kotha Venkataiah,^{S/o Savaraiah}

¶290

B.padma, Wo Bandenna,

¶291

5S.R.Savithramma,^{Wo R.Bal ReddY,}

¶292

(R2 to R58 are not necessary^parties)

¶293

...RESPONDENTS

¶294

Appeal filed under section^{54 of Land AcquisitionAct order and decree of} the court of the senior^{civil Judge at wanaparthypassedin o.P.No.75of 2O14,} dated 09-03-2015

¶295

ORDER : This appeal^{comingon for hearing, upon perusingthe grounds of} appeal, the Judgment^{and Decree of the Lolver court and the material papers in oP} and upon hearing the^{argumentssri v.Manohar Rao, Advocatefor the Appellant} and of the Government^{Pleader for Appeals for the respondent}

¶296

This court while^{following the judgmentin L.A.A'S'No'4of 2016dated} 15-09-2022 and for the^{reasons stated therein, dothorder and decreeas follows:-} 1. That the appeal^{be and hereby is allowed;}

¶297

2.Thatthemarketvalueoftheacquiredlandbeandherebyisenhancedbytwo more times(1+2) than^{the value fixedby the L.A.O,with all other consequential} benefits as stipulated^{underthe amendedAct}

¶298

That the clai nant be and hereby is not entitled to clairr^{interest for} the^delay period of 41t days in preferring the appeal as spec fic)all) oidered by this Court while c >ndoning the delay: and

¶299

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal

¶300

S d/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

LL, SECTION OFFICER

To,

't. The Senior Civil J rdge, at Wanaparthy,

¶305

Two C.D. Copies

) I

HIGH COUR I'

DATED:2010'112022

DECREE

L.A.A.S NO: 439 OF 2016

¶312

ALLOWING'I'HE L.A.A.S WITHOUT G()STS

,w ( n rr^"lq

T\i

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEIANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶317

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶318

PRESENT

¶319

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

¶320

L.A.A.S NO: 481 OF 201 6

¶321

Between:

¶322

Venkatesh, S/o.Manyam

¶323

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶324

AND

¶325

The Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A. Rajeev Lift lrrigation, Scheme-Phasell, Pebbair, Mahabubnagar District.

¶326

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶327

Appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act order^{and decree of} the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy^passed in O.P.No.303^{of 2012,} dated 20-03-2013

¶328

ORDER : This appeal coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the^{grounds of} appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the^{material papers in OP} and upon hearing the arguments Sri V.Manohar Rao,^{Advocatefor the Appellant} and of the Govemment Pleader for Appeals for the respondent

¶329

This court while following the^judgment in L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2016 dated 15-Og-2}22and forthe reasons stated therein, doth order and decree^{as follows:-}

¶330

That the appeal be and hereby is allowed;

¶331

That the market value of the acquired land be and hereby^is enhanced^{by two} .more^{times(1+2)than the value fixedby the L.A.O,with all other consequential} benefits as stipulated under the amended Act

¶332

That the cla mant be and hereby is not eriiitled to clainr int()rest for the delay period of 1119 days in preferring the appdal as spe,:ilically ordered by this Court while r.ondoning the delay: and

¶333

That there b,r no order as to costs in this appeal

¶334

//TRUE COPY//

¶335

rid/-B.s.cHrRANJEEVt JOINT REGISTRAR / trl' / L SEI3TION OFFICER

¶336

To,

¶337

The Senior Civil J udge, at Wanaparthy,

¶338

2rTwo C.D. Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010912022

DECREE

L.A.A.S NO:481 OF 2016

¶345

ALLOWING'THE L.A.A.S WITHOUT C()STS

¶346

n
0
\1\t',

¶347

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶348

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW TWO

¶349

PRESENT

¶350

THE HONOURABLE JUSNCE G SRI DEV] AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶351

L.A.A.S NO: 482 OF 2016

¶352

Between:

¶353

Boya Buggepally Kashanna, S/o. Yellanna

¶354

...APPELLANT'CLAIMANT

¶355

AND

¶356

The Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A. Rajeev Lift lrrigation, Scheme-Phase-ll, Pebbair, Mahabubnagar District.

¶357

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶358

Appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act order and decree of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy passed in O.P.No.58 of 2013, dated 03-06-2014

¶359

ORDER : This appeal coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the^groundsof appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material^papers in^OP and upon hearing the arguments Sri V.Manohar Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of the Government Pleader for Appeals for the respondent

¶360

This court while following the^judgment in L.A.A.S.No.4 of 2016 dated 15-Og-2}22and for the reasons stated therein, doth order and decree as follows:-

¶361

That the appeal be and hereby is allowed;

¶362

That the market value of the acquired land be and hereby is enhanced by two more times(1+2) than the value fixed by the L.A.O, with all other consequential benefits as stipulated under the amended Act

¶363

That the clai nant be and hereby is not entifled to clairr inte,rest for the delay period of 67 I days in preferring the appeal as specilir:a y ordered by this Court while c tndoning the delay: and

¶364

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal

¶365

//TRUE COPY//

¶366

Sd/.B.IS.CHIRANJEEVI ,JOINT REGISIRAR //

¶367

sEcno$OFFICER

¶368

To,

¶369

The Senior Civil Jr dge, at Wanaparthy,

¶370

Two C.D. Copies

HIGH COUF.T

DATED:201(912022

DECREE

L.A.A.S NO:482 OF 2016

¶377

ALLOWING THE L.A.A.S WITHOUT C.)STS

¶378

qi<br>v l""1

¶379

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

¶380

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} rrnrb rnousnND^{AND rwerlw rwo}

¶381

PRESENT

¶382

THE HONOURABLE^{JUSTICE G SRI DEVI} AND THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI}

¶383

L.A.A.S NO 4920F²⁰¹⁶

¶384

Between:

¶385

P.Savaraiah, S/o. Jambulaiah

¶386

...APPELLANT/GLAIMANT

¶387

AND

¶388

TheSpl.Dy.Collector,L.A.RaleevLiftlrrigation,Scheme-Phase-ll,Pebbair' Mahabubnagar District.

¶389

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶390

Appeal filed under^{section54 of Land AcquisitionAct order and decree of} the court of the senior^{civil Judge at wanaparthypassed in o.P.No.326of 2o12,} dated 20-03-2013

¶391

ORDER : This appeal^{coming on for hearing, upon perusingthe groundsof} appeal, the Judgment^{and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in oP} and upon hearing^{the argumentssri v.Manohar Rao, Advocatefor the Appellant} and of the Government^{Pleader for Appeals for the respondent}

¶392

ThiscourtwhilefollowingthejudgmentinL.A.A.S.No.4of2016dated 15-Og-2o22and^{forthe reasons stated therein, doth order and decreeas follows:-} 1. That the appeal^{be andhereby is allowed;}

¶393

2.Thatthemarketvalueoftheacquiredlandbeandherebyisenhanced bytwomoretimes(1+2)thanthevaluefixedbytheL.A.o,withallother consequential benefits^{as stipulated under the amended Act}

¶394

That tho claimant^{be and herebyis not entitled to olairrrinterest for the} delay^p eriocl of^{1117 days in preferring the appeald.s specifically} ordered by this^{Courtwhile condoning the delay:z nd}

¶395

That th( re^{be no order as to costs in this appeal}

¶396

Srl/-B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Senior^{CivilJu Jge, at Wanaparthy,}

¶402

Two C.D. CoPies

HIGH COUR]'

DATED:2010912022

DECREE

L.A.A.S NO: 192^{OF 2016}

¶408

ALLOWING^{..HE L.A.A.S} WITHOUT CoSTS

¶409

/--:a<br>'/,,t <br>l,/
\n
\9V

Gounikadi Golla Ramulu v. The Spl. Dy. Collector, L.a., Rajeev Lift Irrigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gounikadi Golla Ramulu v. The Spl. Dy. Collector, L.a., Rajeev Lift Irrigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Nalgonda Vs Kotagiri Satosh Kumar and 4 Ors, Nalgonda District

The Special Deputy Collector Vs Islavath Surya and 19 Others

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Tharunoju Eshwaramma and 5 Others

Special Deputy Collector Vs Kurumurthy

Special Deputy Collector L.A. Vs Jagmaiah

Boya Buggepally kashanna Vs The Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A.