FIRST APPEAL 996 of 2003 on 8 June 1991

1. Gosangari Satyamma, Wo Gundaiah [(Died ][per ][LR ][Appellant ][No.20) ][age ][67]years.years.

2. Bandapalli Laxmirajam, @ AnnapaLaxmirajam [S/o ][Kistaiah, ][aged 71 ][years,](Died per LRs-applts-21 to 23)(Died per LRs-applts-21 to 23)

3. Atukula Narsingam, S/o Sailu age [67 years.]

4. Kammari [(Polasa) ]Laxmiraiam, [S/o ][Mallesham ], [age ][72 ][years.]

5. Atukula Bhartnamma, Wo [Ganganarsaiah ], [aged ][37 ][years]

6. Podeti Rajalingaiah, S/o [Narsaiah ][age ][62 ][years.]

7. Chittari Narsaiah, S/o Pochaiah [age ][37 years.]

8. Madasu Venkaiah, S/o Buchaiah [Age 67 ][years]

9. Erdandi Gangamma, Wo [Chinna Narsaiah Age ][33 ][years]

'10. Erdandi Narsaiah, S/o Rajalingu Age 62 years

11. Erdandi Subhadra, Wo Bhoomaiah [age ][52 years.]

12. Ramujula Gundaiah, S/o [Kistaiah, ][(Died).]

13. Rahamath AIi, S/o Abdul Ali age 52 [years.]

14. Md. Zaheerudd in, S/o Md. [lvloosa ][age ][35 ][years.]

15. Puppala Lachaiah @ Laxmirajam [S/o Rajaiah ][age ][42 years]

16. Kasarapu Rajalingam, S/o [Rajam age ][72 years-]

17 .Chtra Rajanarsu S/o Rajaiah [age 75 ][years ][(Died)]

18. Ramujala Jitender, S/o Gundaiah.

19. Ramujala Govardhan, S/o Gundaiah

(2 to 19 are agriculturists and R/o Polasa [Village, Jagtial Mandal, Karimnagar]District.District.

20. Aluvala Naga -- z-)1i,,-eer:inipet [Laxmi, ]Street, Jagtial [Wo ][Sridhar aged ]Proper and District'[41. ][yea-rs'.Occ ][Prrvate Service R/o ][3-]

(Resoondent RR 18 & 19 L Representating [the claimant No ][12. ][Appeal ][court]irdei dated 26.03 [2003 A S.MP ][7220103]irdei dated 26.03 [2003 A S.MP ][7220103]

Resoondent No.20 [brough ][on ][record ][as ][L.R ][of ][decsased ][1't Appellant ][as ][per]Cork otOer a"ted [28.03.-2018 ][in ][A S.MP ][No ][2983/17]

...APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS

AND

The Asst.Collector, [Land Acquisition Officer Jagtial, Karimnagar District']

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT

ASMP. NO: 2984 [OF ][2017]

Petition under [Order 9, ][Rule-9 ][of ][CPC, ][praying ][that in the ][circumstances]stated in the [affidavit ][filed ][in ][support ][of ][the ][petition, ][the ][High Court may ][be]pi"".uA set aside the abatement ['caused ][due ][to ][death ][of ][Appellant ][No' ][1 ][in ][the]interest of [justice.]

lA NO: 2 OF 20'18

PetitionunderSectionl51CPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesStatedinthe affidavit [filed ][in support of ][the ][petition, ][the ][High Court ][may ][be pleased ][to ][set]aside the abatement [caused due ][to ][death ][of ][Appellant No.2/Claimant No.2 in ][the]interest of iustice.

IA NO: 3 OF 2018

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit filed [in ][support ][of the ][peiition, ][tne ][Uign ][Court ][may ][be ][pleased ][to]permit the Petitioners to bring the [legal ][representatives ][of ][the ][Appellant]ilo.2/Claimant No.2 [mentioneo ][i-n ][tne petition ][as ][proposed ][appellants/claimants]No. 21 to 23 as in the [interest ][of justice.]

Counsel for the Appellant [: SRl. ][A ][SUDERSHAN REDDY]

Counsel for the Respondent: [GP ][FOR ][APPEALS]

The Court made [the ][following: ][ORDER]

/.-,

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVIANDTHE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINIA.S.No. 996 of 2OO3

JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'bte Justice G. Sridevil The appettants are the ctaimants, who aggrieved by the

market rate as fixed by the Court betow in reference underSection 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in O.P. No.62 of1995, dated 19.12.2007- (for short "the Act"), in respect of theacquired [ands and seeking enhancement of the market vatue,fited the present appeat.

7. Heard the learned Counsel for the appetlants and theGovernment Pleader for Appeats appearing on behatf of therespondent. Perused the materiat avaitabte on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that for the [purpose ]offormation of Common Area Development Road from Potasa toJagtiat Road via Laxmipur and Dharmaram, the tands of [the]ctaimants to an extent of Ac.27 [-79 ]% [guntas ]situated at Potasa,Laxmipur, Dharmaram anC Jabithapur of Jagtiat Mandal wereacquired by the Government by [pubtishing ]draft notification w

GSD. J and MCP- .las_996 2003

under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1g94 on08.06.1991 fottowed by draft dectaration under Section 6 of theAct. However, the possession of the land was taken onAct. However, the possession of the land was taken on30. 10.1987 i.e. prior to the pubtication of the draft notification.The Land Acquisition Officer by award dated 08.11.1993The Land Acquisition Officer by award dated 08.11.1993determined the market vatue of the acquired land at Rs.6,500/_per acre in respect of dry lands and Rs.12,000/- per acre inrespect of the wet tands. Not satisfied with the compensationrespect of the wet tands. Not satisfied with the compensationdetermined by the Land Acquisition Officer, ctaimants soughtreference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of thereference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of thecompensation. The reference was registered as O.p.No.62 of1995 in the Court of Senior Civit Judge at Jagtiat. By order,dated 19.12.2002, learned Senior Civit Judge dismissed thereference by confirming the market vatue fixed by the LandAcquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the ctaimants fitedthe present appeat.the present appeat.

4. Learned Counsel for the appettants would submit that theacquired lands are fertile lands and were being irrigated by SriRam Sagar Project water and.that the annual income fetched bythese lands is Rs.20,000/- per acre, as seen from the evidence JGSD. J and MGP. Jas-996 2003

adduced by the claimants. The reference court ought to havetaken into consideration the evidence adduced by the ctaimantstaken into consideration the evidence adduced by the ctaimantswhich ctinchingty estabtished that commerciaI crops were beingraised in the acquired land such as sugarcane, turmeric. Even asper the sate deeds under Exs.A.l & A.2, the vatue of theacquired land is more than Rs.25,000/- per acre. The referenceraised in the acquired land such as sugarcane, turmeric. Even asper the sate deeds under Exs.A.l & A.2, the vatue of theacquired land is more than Rs.25,000/- per acre. The referenceCourt without taking the sard evidence into consideration, hasfixed very meager and inadequate market rate, and therefore,necessary escatation needs be given.fixed very meager and inadequate market rate, and therefore,necessary escatation needs be given.

5. Learned Government Pteader for Appeats woutd submitthat since the ctaimants did not produce any proof to show thatthe market vatue was Rs.25,000/- per acre and they used to geta net income of Rs.20,000/- per acre per annum, the referenceCourt has rightty confirmed the market vatue as was fixed by theLand Acquisition Officer and the same needs no interference bythis Court.

6. lt is not in dispute that the acquired [ands are cuttivabtelands wherein, as per the evicieilce of ctaimants, crops such assugarcane and turmeric crops were being raised. Though the !--\

GSD. .l and l\4GP. [J]as 996 2003

ctaimants [produced ][the ][oral ][as ][wetl ][as ][documentary ][evidence to]show that the [prevaiting market ][vatue was ][Rs.25,000/- ][per acre]by way of sate transactions [covered by ][Exs.A.1 ][and ][A'2, ][as ][they]pertain much subsequent to the [taking ]Possession [of ][the]acquired [and, the [reference ][Court has reluctant ][to ][ptace]retiance on them. However, [the ][transactions covered ][by ][Exs'A'1]and A.2 [pertain ]to'1988 [and ][1990 ][respectivety, ][and whereas ][the]possession of the acquired [tand was ][taken ][in ][1987' ][Even the]evidence of the [ctaimants woutd ][disclose ][that ][the acquired ][lands]were being cuttivated with [the ][water ][from ][canats ][of ][Sriram]Sagar Project. Some [of ][the ][witnesses ][have ][also ][stated ][that ][they]used to get a net income [of ][RS.20,000/- ][per ][annum']these [circumstances, we ][are inctined ][to ][enhance]Considering att the market vatue of [the ][acquired land ][to ][Rs.17,000/- ][per ][acre]by treating att the [lands ][as ][one category.]

7. ln the result, the appeat [is ][partty attowed ][hotding ][that ][the]claimants are entitted to [comPensation ][at ][the ][market ][rate ][of]Rs.17,000/- [per ]acre by [treating ][att ][the ][tands ][into ][one ][category]atong with other statutory [benefits ][under ][the ][amended ][statute]and of the [Land ][Acquisition ]Act. [lnasmuch as ][the subject ][lands]

\ \-\

' ['r?El]

'2-

/.2

GSD, J and MGP. Jas 996 2003

were acquired as earty as on 30.'10.'1987 i.e., much prior to the4(1) notification dated 08.06.1991, the claimants are entittedfor additiona[ interest at the rate of 15% per annum oncompensation i.e., market vatue, additiona[ market vatue andsolatium from the date of taking over actual possession i.e.,4(1) notification dated 08.06.1991, the claimants are entittedfor additiona[ interest at the rate of 15% per annum oncompensation i.e., market vatue, additiona[ market vatue andsolatium from the date of taking over actual possession i.e.,30.10.1987 titt the date of pubtication of notification i.e.,08.06.1991. There shatt be no order as to costs.08.06.1991. There shatt be no order as to costs.

Misceltaneous petitions, if any pending, shalI stand closed.

SD/. K, SRINIVASA RAOJOINTGISTR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1. The Senior Civil Judge, Jagitial, Karimnagar District.

2. One CC to SRl. A SUDERSHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]3. Two CCs to GP FOR APPEALS, High Court for the State of TelanganalouTl4. Two CD Copies pg HIGH COURT

DATED: 0410812023

JUDGMENTAS.No.996 of 2003

PARTLY ALLOWING

THE MACMA

@0+$

1$esTE16(7-o1 2 tFq [202[]r)**(:i' DEs PA-rC

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABADTHURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUSTTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWOPRESENTTHE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVIAND

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINIFIRST APPEAL NO: 996 OF 2003

Between:

'1 . Gosangari Satyamma, Wo Gundaiah (Died per LR Appellant No.20) age 67years.years.

2. Bandapalli Laxmirajam, @ Annapalaxmirajam S/o Kistaiah, aged 7'l [years,](Died per LRs-applts-21 to 23)(Died per LRs-applts-21 to 23)

3. Atukula Narsingam, S/o Sailu age 67 years.

4. Kammari (Polasa) Laxmirajam, S/o Mallesham, age 72 years.

5. Atukula Bha(namma, Wo Ganganarsaiah , aged 37 [years]

6. Podeti Rajalingaiah, S/o Narsaiah age 62 years.

7. Chittari Narsaiah, S/o Pochaiah age 37 years.

B. Madasu Venkaiah, S/o Buchaiah Age 67 years.

9. Erdandi Gangamma, Wo Chinna Narsaiah Age 33 years '10. Erdandi Narsaiah, S/o Rajalingu Age 62 years '1 [.1. ]Erdandi Subhadra, Wo Bhoomaiah age 52 years.Erdandi Subhadra, Wo Bhoomaiah age 52 years.

12. Ramulula Gundaiah, S/o Kistaiah, (Died).

13. Rahamath Ali, S/o Abdul Ali age 52 years.

14. Md. Zaheeruddin, S/o Md. Moosa age 35 years.

'1 5. Puppala Lachaiah @ Laxmirajam S/o Rajaiah age 42 years

l6.Kasarapu Rajalingam, S/o Rajam age 72 years.

17 . Chirra Rajanarsu S/o Rajaiah age 75 years (Died)

'18. Ramujala Jitender, S/o Gundaiah.

1 9. Ramujala Govardhan, S/o Gundaiah

(2 to 19 are agriculturists and Rl/o Polasa Village, Jagtial Mandal, KarimnagarDistrict.District.

20. Aluvala Naga Laxmi, Wo Sridhar aged 41 [years, ]Occ: Private Service [R/o ][3-]2-215, Peranipet Street, Jagtial Proper and District.2-215, Peranipet Street, Jagtial Proper and District.

(Respondent RR 18 & 19 L Representating the claimant No.'12. Appeal Courtorder dated 26.03.2003 A.S.MP 7220103order dated 26.03.2003 A.S.MP 7220103

Respondent No.20 brough on record as L.R of deceased 1't Appellant as [per]Court order dated 28,03.2018 in A S.MP.No.2983117

...APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS

AND

The Asst.collector, Land Acquisition officer Jagtiar, Karimnagar District.

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT

Appeal under section 54 of L.A. Act., against the Judgment and Decreedated: 19-12-2002 made in o.p.No.62 of 1995 on the fire of the senior civir Judge,Jagitial.dated: 19-12-2002 made in o.p.No.62 of 1995 on the fire of the senior civir Judge,Jagitial.

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds ofappeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the materiar papers in theMVoP and upon hearing the arguments of sRl A SUDERSHAN REDDY, Advocatefor the appellant and of Gp for Appeals, Advocate for the Respondent.MVoP and upon hearing the arguments of sRl A SUDERSHAN REDDY, Advocatefor the appellant and of Gp for Appeals, Advocate for the Respondent.

The Court doth order and decree as follows:

l That this appear be and hereby is parfly ailowed hording that the craimants areentitled to compensation at the market rate of Rs.17,00-01_ p"r r"i" Oylr"rtrgall the lands into one category arong with other statutory benefrts under tnIamended statute and of the Land Acquisition Act;entitled to compensation at the market rate of Rs.17,00-01_ p"r r"i" Oylr"rtrgall the lands into one category arong with other statutory benefrts under tnIamended statute and of the Land Acquisition Act;

of the Land Acquisition Act;the Land Acquisition Act;Land Acquisition Act;Acquisition Act;2' Thal the subject rands were acquired as earry as on 30.10.1gg7 i.e., muchadditional interest at the rate prior to the 4(1) notification dated of 15ok pe( 08.06.199.1 annum on compensation , the claimants are i.e., entiiled formarketvalue, additionar market varue and soiatium from the date of taking over actuaipossession i.e. , 30. I 0. 1 997 till the date of publication ot not"mcation [-i=.,]08.06. 1991;additional interest at the rate prior to the 4(1) notification dated of 15ok pe( 08.06.199.1 annum on compensation , the claimants are i.e., entiiled formarketvalue, additionar market varue and soiatium from the date of taking over actuaipossession i.e. , 30. I 0. 1 997 till the date of publication ot not"mcation [-i=.,]08.06. 1991; 1991;s lnal save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower court shafl stands confirmedin all other respects; andin all other respects; and

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

To,

pr

SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO

JorNr yrRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Jagitial, Karimnagar district

2. Two CD CopiesTwo CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0410812023

DECREEAS.No.996 of 2003

PARTLY ALLOWINGTHE MACMA

@q'8a[(()]zrlr\>4-