LAAS/103/2024 of Bommena Anantha Rao Vs Special Deputy Collector, L.A., on 29 January 2026

1. Special Deputy Collector, 1.A., Unit-Vll, FFC/[/MR & Dr. BRA PCSSP, Rajanna Sircilla District. ...Respondent No.1/Referral Authority

2. Bommena Rajitha, W/o Srinivas Rao, Aged: 51 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 1-14l1 , Kodurupaka Village, Boinpalli lvlandal, Rajanna Sircilla District. ...Respondent No.2/Claimant No.1

3. Bommena Srinivas Rao, S/o. Bhoom Rao, Aged 60 Years, Occ: Not Known, R/o. H.No. 'l-15 and 1-15/1. Kodurupaka Village, Boinpalli Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

4. Bommena Ananda Rao,, S/o. Bhoom Rao, Aged 58 Years, Occ. Not Known, R/o. H.No. 1-15 and 1-1511, Kodurupaka Village, Boinpalli Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

5. Bommena Kondal Rao, S/o. Bhoom Rao, Aged 64 Years, Occ: Not Known, R/o. Kodurupaka Village, Boinpalli Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla Diskict.

6. P. Anantha Laxmi, W/o. Damodar Rao, Aged 70 Years, Occ: Household, R/o. Dharmaram Village, Konaraopet Mandal, Karimnagar District.

7. G. Laxmi, Wo. Karunakar Rao, Aged 66 Years, Occ: Hotr ehold, R/o. Il4ustipalli Village, Sircilla Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District. ...Respondent No.3 tr; 7/Claimant No.3 to 7 (Respondent No.3 to 7 are not necessary parties to this Ar: real) l.A. No. 1 ot 2O24 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in th r in the affidavit flled in support of the petition, the High Court ma / further proceedings including the release of the compensation a i passing of Award and Decree dated: 28-10-2024 in LAOP No. 21 Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority for t^ at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Appeal crrcumstances stated oe pleased to stay all ounts purs uant to the of 201 8, on the file of ) State of Telangana, Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circr r affidavit filed in support of the petition. the High Court may be Respondent No. 3 (Bommena Srinivas Rao) from the array of Pa of 2024 pending on the file of this Hon'ble Court and so also as o No.24 of 2018 on the file of Land Acquisition. Rehabilita:i

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circrr affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may br: Respondent No. 5 (Bommena Kondal Rao) from the array of Part 2024 pending on the file of this Hon'ble Court and so also as o No. 24 of 2018 on the file of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitat Authority, for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. l.A. No. 2 ot 2025 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circrr rstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be cleased to delete the Respondent No. 4 (Bommena Ananda Rao) from the array of P; lies in LAAS No. 103 of 2024 pending on the file of this Hon'ble Court and so also as rl aimant No. 4 in LAOP No. 24 of 2018 on the file of Land Acquisition, Rehabililat )n and Resettlement

)stances stated in the )eased to delete the ties in LAAS No. 103 limant No. 3 rn LAOP )n and Resettlement TStances stated in the pleased lo delete the :s in LAAS No. 1 03 of rmant No. 5 in LAOP )n and Resettlement Counsel for the Appellant: Mrs. G JHANSI, ADVOCATE Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : AGP FOR APPEALS Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI P RAMACHANDRAN, , ,DVOCATE The Court made the following: JUDGMENT l.A. No. 1 of 2025 l.A. No. 3 ot 2025

o- IN TIIE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO L.A.A.S No.l03 of 2024 Date:29.01.2026 Between: Bommena Anantha Rao. ...Appellant And Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition. ...Respondent JTIDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman) Heard Mrs.G.Jhansi, learned counsel for the appellant, Itjarned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Appeals and Sri P.Ramachandran, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. With the consent of the all the aforesaid counsels. this appeal is heard and decided finally

3. This appeal is preferred under Section j4 ofthe Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehqbilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity, .the \ ,.)

Act of 2013'), challenging the Award dated ! 8.10.2024 in L.A.O.P No.24 of 2018 passed by the Lanrl Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authoritv for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad

Notice sent to 6th respondent is retumecl u .-served with an endorsement that parties are not available in rl e village and same was retumed. Sending notice to 6'h resp< ndent to the address available is sufficient in tcrms of Secritn 27 of the General Clauses Act

5. Despite service of notice, there is no repr :sentation on [rehalf of 7th respondent.

6. Perusal of the record would reveal the.l the subject property was acquired for the purpose of constri :tion of Mid Manair Reservoir and vacant possession u i s taken on i8.11.2010. The Land Acquisition Officer pass:d award on 23.02.2016 in file No.F/22412012.

1J I

7. Reference has been made under Section 64 rlw 76 of the Act of 2013 by the l" respondent vide L.A.O.P.No.24 of 2018 Vide impugned Arvard, learned Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Autliority, disposed of the said reference holding that three sons, two daughters and wife of Bommena Srinivasa Rao (another son of Bommena Bhoomaiah) viz.,(l) Bommena Anantha Rao (2) Bommena Ananda Rao (3) Bommena Kondal Rao (4) P.Anantha Laxmi and (5) G.Laxmi and (6) Bommena Rajitha are entitled to 1/6'h share in the compensation amount of Rs.10,72,7861- along with accrued interest in equai proportions. Challenging the said Award, present appeal is preferred.

8. Perusal of the record would reveal that the Reference Court impleaded respondent Nos.3 to J suo moto holding that they are also entitled for compensation. Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 lrled I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2025 in the present appeal, with a request to delete their names in the said reference contending that Reference Court suo moto made them as parties. They are \ I ''.l:i-l rniili!# ,)

not claiming any right and interest over the srLl ject propefty Reference Court ought to have decided the disl utes between the claimant No.1 and claimant No.2 without itrl leading other partles suo moto.

9. It is the specific contention of the leamed : runsel for the appellant that the reference Courl has no power .r implead any parly inctuding ciaimant suo moto. She placed tr iiance on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex (1, ,urt in Ram Prakash Agarwal and another v. Gopi Kr ishan (tlead through LRs) and othersr. In the said judgmerl the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: "24. The said case is required to be examined li angle. Undoubtedly, the respondents did nor application either under Section l8 or Section 3( Act to the Land Acquisition Collector. The jurisrii Reference Court, vis-d-vis "persons interestec, explained by this court in Shyamali Das v. I[r ((2006) 12 SCC 300), holding that the Referenc,: not have the jurisdiction to entertain any applica interesse suo, or in the nature thereof. The C I under: (SCC p.304. para 19) " 19. The Act is a complete code by itself. lt c remedies not only to those whose lands have br;r but also to those who claim the awarded arl I ' lZOt:; t t Suprernc Court Cases 296 rm another make any )lthe 1894 ;tion of the has been Chowdhry Court does ior, of pro rut held as 'ovides for n acquired rnt or any I I ! l

I i apportionrnent thereof. A Land Acquisition Judge derives its jurisdiction from the order ol reference. It is bound thereby. His jurisdiction is to determine adequacy or otherwise of the amount of compensation paid under the award made by the Collector." Thus holding that: (SCC p.304, para t9) "19....It is not within his domain to entertain any application ofpro interessee suo or in the nature thereof." The plea of the appellant therein, statrng that the title dispute be directed to be decided by the Referencc Court itself, sincc the appellant was not a person interested in the award. was rejected by this Court, observing that the Relerence Court does not have the power to entertain an application under Order 1 Rule l0 CPC."

25. ln Ajjam Linganna v. Land Acquisition Officer((2002) 9 SCC 426, this Court made observations to the elfect that it is not open to the parties to apply directly to thc Reference Court for impleadment, and to seek enhancement under Section l8 for compensation."

10. In the light of the aforesaid submissions and also considering the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, the impugned Award dated 28.10.2024 in L.A.O.P.No.24 of 2018 passed by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority at Hyderabad is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded back to the said authority with a direction to decide L.A.O.P.No.24 of 2018 strictly in accordance with law. ! -:r i\

11. Reference Court shall make endeavor to Lispose of the L.A O.P.No.24 of 2018 within a period of threc months from the date o1- receipt of a copy of this order. Hoiv :ver, both the appeltant/clairnant No.2 and 2"d respondentr: airnant No. I shall appear before the Reference Court on (( .02.2026 aru) cooperate with the Reference Courl in dispo:; I of the said appeal l)-. Accordingly, Appeal IS disposed of. vliscellaneous applications, ifany, shall stand closed. There slL; Il be no order as to costs SD/- M. MANJULA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To,

SECTION OFFICER The Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Re$ettlement \uthority for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. Two CCs to GP for Appeals, High Court for the State of -l ( langana at Hyderabad tourl One CC to Mrs G Jhansi, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri P Ramachandran, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies

ABK j l I I I I I I I i i'

HIGH COURT DATED: 2910112026

JUDGMENT

LAAS.No.103 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL K9 Y lHE SIi t |l 6 ftt: l?6

r, oo * csl i.,// :;/

2-G l,t : L