Smt.M.Kanaka Durga

Page No. 1 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 1

Fair copy

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE AT JOGULAMBA GADWAL

Monday, this the 24th day of April, 2023

Present: Smt.M.Kanaka Durga, Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal

L.A.O.P. No. 37 of 2016

(Award No. 16 of 2013, dated:15-06-2013

Between:-

1. Nagi Reddy S/o Gopal Reddy, 48 Yrs, Occ: Business/Agriculture, R/o: Gadwal Town and Mandal.

2. K.Raghuvardhan Reddy S/o Venkatram Reddy, 29 Yrs, Occ: Agri- culture, R/o: Gadwal town and Mandal.

Both R/o: Rajivmargh Road C/o Vijaya Mess H.No.7-9-181, Nal- lakunta, Jogulamba Gadwal District Telangana State. …Claimants

And

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal. …Respondent

Sub:-Reference U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for en- hancement of compensation amount in respect of land in Sy.No.885/2 dry an extent of Ac 1-22 guntas and Ac 0-02 respectively situated within the limits of Gadwal village for the purpose of formation of two lane outer ring road to Gadwal Town under award No.16 of 2013.

Page No. 2 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 2

1. Date of Notification U/Sec. 4 (1) of the Land:04-02-2013 Acquisition Act

2. Date of Taking Possession of the Property:18-06-2013

3. Number and date of the award of the Land: Award No.16/2013 Acquisition Officer dated:15-06-2013

4. Name of the Project:Formation of Outer Ring Road to Gadwal Town.

******

This Original Petition coming before me for final hearing on 06-04-2023 in the presence of Sri S.D.Ramulu, Advocate for the claimants No.1 and 2 and of Sri Sri A.Krishna Reddy, Assistant

Government Pleader, for the respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:

O R D E R

1. This reference is made under Section 18 of the Land Ac- quisition Act for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in this award No.16 of 2013, dated:15-06-2013.

2.The brief averments of the claim statement are that the claimant No.1 and 2 the owners, pattedars and possessors of the acquired lands bearing Sy.No. 885/2 dry extent Ac. 1-22 guntas and Ac. 0-02 guntas respectively situated within the limits of Gad-

Page No. 3 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 3 wal Village for the purpose of formation of two lanes Outer Ring

Road to Gadwal Town. The notification under section 4(1) of the

Land Acquisition Act 1894 has been issued and published in A.P.

Gazette MBNR No. 02/2013 dated:04-02-2013 at page No.4. The

LAO-RDO Gadwal has passed award No.16/2013 dated:15-06-2013 and awarded fixing market value at Rs. 4,65,000/- per acre and paid to claimants which is inadequate and arbitrary. Besides the

LAO-RDO Gadwal also paid value for structures i.e., agricultural well and trees. That, during the award enquiry the claimants claimed at Rs. 3000/- per square yard and the same also claimed in the under section 18 of L.A. Act 1894 for the acquire land with specific grounds and stated that the prevailing market value on the date of section 4(1) notification is Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three thousands) per Sq. yard as the acquired land is situated within Mu- nicipal limits and having urban potentialities and huge demand for housing and establishment of Industries. That, the acquired land bearing Sy.No. 885/2 extent 1-24 guntas situated at Gadwal Village

Sivar is included in Gadwal Municipality as per the intimation fur- nished by the Public Information Officer, Gadwal Municipality vide

No. 1473/2016 dated: 23-02-2017 and therefore the land is having urban potentiality. The original intimation letter No. 1473/2016

Page No. 4 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 4

dated: 23-02-2017 along with original Gadwal Municipality Master

plan and G.O.Ms.No.388 Municipal Administration and Urban De- velopment (Elec-1) Department dated:11-10-2012 together with

Gazette Notification are filed herewith and they may be marked as exhibits on behalf of claimants. That, the same LAO-RD0 Gadwal has previously acquired land bearing Sy.No. 837/2 dry extent 0-10 gts situated at Gadwal Village and Mandal has been acquired for the purpose of construction of New Broad Guage Railway line from

Gadwal Town to Raichur vide his award No.6/2007 dated: 04-08- 2007, the section 4(1) notification was 17.3.2007 and fixed market value of Rs. 17,000/- per acre on reference U/s 18 of the L.A. Act, the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal after thorough enquiry and on perusal of crucial documents and taking judicial notice of ex- isted developments, available amenities, possibilities for establish- ment of Industries and residential houses and surrounding devel- oped areas etc., has enhanced the market value of said land from

Rs.l,17,000/- per acre to Rs. 354/- per Sq. yard and also granted

additional benefits U/s 23 (1-A), sec. 23 (2) and Sec. 28 of L.A. Act

1894 in addition to the Advocate Fee of Rs.5000/- and other costs in addition to the interest on solatium and additional market value etc., vide judgment and decree passed in OP No. 23 of 2010 dated:

Page No. 5 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 5 09-11-2012. A certified copy of said Judgment is filed herewith along with LAO-RDO Gadwal award No. 6/2007 dated: 04-7-2007

U/s 30 & 31 and was taken up in OP 29/2012 and decided in favour of claimant of OP No.23/ 2010. The LAO has dropped the matter in preferring appeal and the said judgment and decree attained final- ity. The LAO-RDO has also deposited the decretal amount vide his letter No. E/4437/2012 dated: 6.6.2013 together with "D" Form with Rs.13,50,574/- and the same has been paid to the claimant of O.P.No.23/2010. The certified copy the letter of LAO

dated:06-06-2013, "D" form are filed herewith and the above doc-

uments may also be marked as exhibits on behalf of claimants pertaining to OP 23/2010.

3.The present acquired land bearing Sy.No. 885/2 dry ex- tent Ac.1-24 guntas and the land already acquired by the LAO-

RDO Gadwal bearing Sy.No.837/2 dry extent 0-10 guntas for Rail- way line covered under Judgment and decree of OP No.23 of 2010

dated: 09-11-2012 is situated adjoining and both lands are similar

in nature, texture and having sane physical features and having

Gadwal Municipal Urban potentiality. That, the claimants also sub- mit that the acquired land is located within the Municipal limits in prime locality and possessing urban potentiality surrounded by

Page No. 6 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 6 residential, commercial buildings and industries such as Ground

Nut, decategators, Rice Mills, Cotton Ginning Mills, house sites made and sold IDSMT plots and buildings, Food Corporation of In- dia, Godowns, connecting BT road of R &s B Road to NH-7 (44) to the Eastern side and R & B BT Road from Gadwal to leeja, Raichur,

Karnataka, Kurnool Town towards south east offices and residential quarters of Railway Staff and Railway Station Gadwal junction. The

E.E. gates Erection Division, PJP Gadwal, Permanent Helipad, Dis- trict Collectors Office and Residential complex, the Pay and Ac- counts Officer of PJP Unit, Gadwal. The Executive Engineer, Net- tampad Lift Irrigation Scheme Division, the Executive Engineer,

Quality Control Office, the Executive Engineer, PJP LAR Division

No.2, Special Deputy Collector office LAO (PJP) Gadwal Office and their residential Quarters Temple Lord Venkateshwara Swamy and

Lord Sri Hanuman Temple, Community Marriage Hall, Mosque,

Gadwal, Rural Police Station, Jammulamma Diety Temple, Haritha

Hotel of T.S. Tourism Development Corporation, Motor Vehicle In- spector Office and individual layouts approved by Director Town and Country Planning situated near by the acquired land. There is a big agricultural market yard, its office; its Guest House are situ- ated adjacent to the present acquired land. There is BC Colony,

Page No. 7 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 7

Raghavendra Colony are also situated adjoining to this acquired land. As such the acquired land is having very much demand for house sites also for individual establishments and other institu- tions with urban potentialities for construction, having nearby power supply, very big Municipality water Tank surrounding B.T.

Road, Telephone facilities etc., which aspect the LAO-RDO Gadwal has not taken into consideration while determining market value but arbitrarily fixed very meager amount of Rs.4,65,000/- per acre which is quite inadequate and must have determined at Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand only) per square yard as was the existing correct market value for the acquired land on the date of section 4(1) notification.

4.The then LAO-RDO Gadwal has also acquired surround- ing lands situated near acquired land vide Award No. 1/1986

dated: 28-01-1986 to an extent of Ac. 42-01 guntas for IDSMT and

an extent Ac. 45-17 guntas vide Award No.1/1987 dated: 21-01- 1987 for extention of agriculture market yard and Award No.

1/2002 dated: 17-04-2002 an extent of Ac. 47-04 guntas for II

Phase Housing Board Colony, the LAO-MRO Gadwal acquired an extent of Ac. 10-20 guntas vide Award No. 1/1992 dated: 18-02- 1992 for Raghavendra Colony. All these lands acquired by the LAO

Page No. 8 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 8 have been suitably enhanced the market value and upheld by the

Hon’ble High Court, Hon’ble Supreme Court as determined by the

Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal in Yard basis. Thus, there is no

vacant land surrounding Gadwal Town towards eastern, northern, southern sides and to the western side exist this acquired land for outer ring road and therefore being District Head Quarter the land values have been increased heavenly. Further, the Government have acquired an extent of Ac. 60-00 guntas for construction of houses to weaker sections in Sy.No. 830, 831, 829, 828 and 826 in which roads, drainages, Electricity, drinking water facilities pro- vided residential houses already constructed which are adjoining to the present acquired land of this OP claimants.

5.The claimants prays the Court to pass order and award

Rs.3000/- per square yard.

i) That the market value of the compensation may be re-deter- mined and fixed at Rs.3000/- Per square yard.

ii)Payment of additional market value at l2% (twelve per- cent ) per annum under section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

iii) Payment of additional amount i.e., solatium of 30% (Thirty percent) under section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

Page No. 9 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 9 iv.Direct that the respondent shall pay interest on the amount of item No. (i) enhanced compensation (ii) 12% additional market value amount (iii) 30% solatium and at the rate of 9% (Nine percent) per annum from the date of possession of the land or award whichever is earlier for a period of one year and interest of 15% (fifteen per- cent) per annum from the date of the expiry of the said period of one year to till the same is paid into the Hon'ble Court.

v. Further direct the respondent shall also to pay the interest at the rate of 9% and 15% on the amount of 12% additional market value and 30% solatium awarded by the respondent as the same were not awarded to the claimants in the award by the respon- dent. vi. Cost of the proceedings be awarded and vii. Any other relief or reliefs of which the claimants are entitled and the Court deems think fit and proper in the interest of justice.

6.The respondent filed the reply statement contending that the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue-Divisional Officer,

Gadwal reference relates to Sy.No.885/2 dry an extent of Ac 01-22 guntas and Ac 0-02 guntas situated at Gadwal village and Mandal of Mahabubnagar District and the compensation awarded by the

Land Acquisition Officer is Rs.4,65,000/- per acre only. The objec-

Page No. 10 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 10 tion of the applicant is only about the market value of compensa- tion awarded. He stated that the compensation paid is very mea- ger and the market value is fixed at very low rate. He did not give reasons as to how is effected the compensation determined by the

Land Acquisition Officer. The application does not contain any rel- evant reasons and any fresh evidence, which was not produced at the time of award enquiry. Notices U/s 9 (3) and 10 of the L.A. Act was served on the applicant while fixing the date of award enquiry on 12-04-2013 by calling them for attending award enquiry on that date. The applicant has appeared before the Land Acquisition Offi- cer and deposed. He claimed market value @ Rs.3,000/- per square yard and requested to pay compensation to him only. The claimant filed petition U/s 18 claiming market value @ Rs.3,000/- per square yards and requested to refer his claim to civil court for adjudication. Thus the objection of awardee is only about the de- termination of market value only. Draft Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in A.P. Gazette

MBNR 02 of 2013, dated:04-02-2013 at page No.4. All the sales of lands registered in the subject village during the preceding three years prior to the date of publication of Draft Notification have

Page No. 11 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 11 been taken into account while fixing the market value of

Rs.4,65,000/- per acre.

7.The Executive Engineer R & B, Wanaparthy has submit- ted requisition vide reference No.A1/LA/ORR/2012-12, dated:26- 11-2012 for acquisition of lands in Sy.NOs.883/2. 884/2, 885/2 measuring extent Ac 1-00, 0-39, 1-24 guntas situated in the limits of Gadwal Village and Mandal for formation of outer ring road to

Gadwal town. The Draft Notification under Section 4 (1) of the

Land Acquisition Act has been approved by the District Collector,

Mahabubnagar vide proceedings No.G1/54/2013, dated:16-03- 2013 and the substance of the same has been published. 1. Pub- lished in the A.P. Gazettee MBNR No.2/2013, dated:04-02-2013, 2) published in the locality at all conspicuous places on 23-03-2013,

3. Published in Andhra Bhoomi, Telugu daily on 23-03-2013 and 4.

Published in Namasthe Telangana, Telugu daily on 23-03-2013.

The material date for proposing the market value of lands under acquisition is 04-02-2013 i.e., the last date of the publication of substance of Draft Notification. As per the instructions in the

B.S.O.90 (iii) 8, the registered sale particulars of Gadwal village for the preceding three years nor to the date of publication of Draft

Notification have been obtained from the Sub-Registrar, Gadwal

Page No. 12 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 12 i.e., from 04-02-2010 to 03-02-2013. There are (1167) registered sale transactions have been taken place during the crucial period of three years. The Revenue Divisional Officer has inspected the lands under acquisition and the lands covered by sales along with the Tahsildar, Gadwal, Mandal Surveyor, Revenue Inspector and

Village Revenue Officer concerned. To arrive at the true market value of the lands under acquisition, all the registered sales are discussed as detailed below:

Sale at SI.No. 5, 20, 21, 23 to 26, 30, 33, 38, 39, 45, 46, 48, 56, 59, 65, 71, 74, 75, 77, 87, 89, 101, 107, 113., 122, 126, 135, 137, 166, 169, 170, 175, 176, 185, 210, 213, 214, 216 to 218, 220, 221, 224, 225, 227, 228, 230, 238, 240, 241, 243, 249, 253, 261, 280, 296, 304, 310, 318, 320, 321, 322, 328, 337, 341, 342, 349, 352, 353, 369, 382, 385, 392, 393 to 395, 403, 408, 410, 418, 419, 430, 431, 438, 443, 449 to 451, 462, 463, 465, 469, 472 to 474, 478, 485, 489 to 491, 494, 502, 514 to 523. 527, 529, 530, 537, 545, 551, 562, 572, 574, 583, 585, 590, 594 to 596, 598, 604, 606, 614, 622, 624, 626, 633, 638, 640, 643, 646, 650, 651, 654, 655, 657, 658, 677 to 680, 694 to 697, 720, 738, 745, 749 to 753, 755, 757 to 761, 765, 771, 777, 778, 780, 783 to 786, 790, 805, 808, 809, 830 to 833, 835, 837, 842 to 844, 846, 847, 849,

Page No. 13 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 13 850, 854, 855, 858, 889, 890, 892, 893, 903, 906, 915, 917, 920, 924, 926, 929, 932, 935, 938 to 940, 946, 947, 958, 960, 961, 964, 973, 974, 981, 982, 984, 991, 993, 1000, 1007, 1011, 1014, 1029, 1030, 1032, 1035, 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046, 1051, 1052, 1062, 1066, 1068, 1069, 1073, 1074, 1076, 1078, 1084, 1086, 1091, 1092, 1097 to 1100, 1103, 1111, 1114, 1121, 1125,1127, 1128, 1136, 1148 to 1150, 1158, 1161, 1164 and 1165:

The above sales are combined sales having involved two or more

Sy.No.s which do not give the correct market value of the particu- lar Sy.No. Hence these sales are discarded.

Sale at Sl.No. 1 to 4, 6 to 19, 22, 27 to 29, 31, 32, 34 to 37, 40 to 44, 47, 49 to 55, 60 to 64, 66 to 70, 72, 73, 76, 78 to 86, 88, 90, 92 to 100, 102 to 106, 108 to 112, 114 to 121, 123 to 125, 128 to

134. 136, 138 to l65, 167, 168, 171 to 174, 177 to 184, 186 to 209, 211, 212, 215, 219, 222, 223, 226. 229, 231 to 237, 239, 242, 244 to 248, 250 to 252, 254 to 260, 262 to 266, 268 to 279, 281 to 288. 290 to 295, 297 to 303, 305 to 309, 311 to 317, 319, 323 to 326, 329 to 336, 338 to 340. 343 to 348, 350, 351, 354 to 368, 370 to 381, 383, 384, 386, 387, 390,391, 396 to 402, 404 to 407, 409, 11 to 413. 415 to 417, 420 to 429, 432 to 437, 439 to 442, 444 to 448, 452 to 456, 458 to 461, A64 466 to 468, 470,

Page No. 14 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 14 471, 475 to 477, 479 to 484, 486 to 488, 492, 493, 495 to 501, 503 to 513, 524 to 526, 528, 531 to 536, 538 to 544, 546 to 550, 552 to 561, 563 to 571, 573, 575 to 580, 582, 584, 587 to 589, 591 to 593, 597, 599 to 603, 605, 607 to 613, 615 to 621, 623, 625, 627 to 632, 634 to 637, 639, 641, 642, 644, 645, 647 to 649, 652, 653, 656, 659 to 675, 681 to 689, 692, 693, 698 to 708, 711 to 719, 721 to 737, 739 to 744, 746 to 748, 754, 756, 762 to 764, 766 to 770, 772 to 776, 779, 781, 782, 787 to 789, 791 to 797, 799 to 804, 806, 807, 810 to 817, 821 to 829, 834, 836, 838 to 841, 845, 848, 851 to 853, 856, 857, 859 to 888, 891, 894 to 902, 904, 905, 907 to 914, 916, 918, 919, 921, 925, 927, 928, 930, 931, 933, 934, 937, 941 to 945, 948 to 952, 954 to 956, 959, 962, 965 to 972, 975 to 980, 983, 985 to 990, 992, 994 to 999, 1001 to 1006, 1008 to 1010, 1012, 1013, 1015 to 1028, 1031, 1033, 1034, 1036 to 1039, 1041, 1042, 1044, 1047 to 1050, 1053 to 1060, 1063 to 1065, 1067, 1070 to 1072, 1075, 1077, 1079 to 1083, 1085, 1088 to 1090, 1093 to 1096, 1101, 1102, 1104 to 1110, 1112, 1113, 1115 to 1120, 1122 to 1124, 1126, 1129 to 1135, 1137 to 1147, 1151 to 1153, 1155 to 1157, 1159, 1160, 1162, 1163, 1166 and 1167:

Page No. 15 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 15

The meager extent of land on yardage basis is involved in the above sale transactions. The above lands are not converted into plots and also not approved by any competent authority. Hence these sales are discarded.

Sale at Sl.No. 57, 58, 91, 127, 267, 289, 327, 388, 389, 414, 457, 581, 586, 676, 690, 691, 709, 710, 798, 818 to 820, 922, 923, 953, 957, 963, 1061, 1087, 1100 and 1154:

ITEM NO.III

Sy.No.885/2 to an extent of Ac 1-24 guntas

ClassificationMarket value per acreLand valueTrees valueStructures valueTotal value30% Solatium12% Addl. MV from 04-02-2013 to 15-06-2013Total compensation for (32 days) Name of theSy.Ex- Sl.Awardee withNo.tent No.fathers nameAc. Gts.

1Nagi Reddy S/885/21-22Dry/PattaRs.4,65,000=00Rs.7,20,750=00Rs.3,296=00Rs.6,32,710=00Rs.13,56,756=00Rs.4,07,027=00Rs.58,879=0018,22,662=00 oGopal Reddy 2Raghuvard-885/20-02Dry/PattaRs.4,65,000=00Rs.23,250=00------Rs.23,250=00Rs.6,975=00Rs.1,009=00Rs.31,234=00 han Reddy S/o Venkatram Reddy 1-24Rs.7,44,000=00Rs.3,296=00Rs.6,32,710=00Rs.13,80,006=00Rs.4,14,002=00Rs.59,888=00Rs.18,53,896=00

Page No. 16 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 16

As per the Revenue Records the land in Sy.No.885 to an extent of

Ac 6-07 guntas situated in the limits of Gadwal Village and Gadwal

Mandal is patta land. Out of which an extent of Ac 1-24 guntas of land is coming under present acquisition. During the course of award enquiry the land owner Nagi Reddy S/o Gopal Reddy has claimed Rs.3,000/- per square yard for an extent of Ac1-22 guntas but he did not file any documentary evidence in support of his claim. Therefore, the claim of Rs.3,000/- per square yard is not considered for want of documentary evidence. No other persons have appeared and submitted any claims or objections in the mat- ter in respect of this land. The ownership of rights of the claimants have been verified with reference to the ROR and found correct. The Executive Engineer PR, Department has furnished the value Rs.6,32,710=00 in respect of the open well with RR steininig and the Divisional Forest Officer has furnished the value of

Rs.3,296=00 for (4) kanuga trees and (2) neem trees. The same valuations have been taken in to consideration in awarding the compensation. Therefore, the LAO., has award an amount of

Rs.18,53,896=00 towards compensation of land and structures coming under acquisition in Sy.No.885 and order for payment to the following persons:

Page No. 17 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 17

1. Nagi Reddy S/o Gopal Reddy

Rs.18,22,662=00

2. Raghuvardhan Reddy S/o Venkatram ReddyRs.

31,234=00

The Executive Engineer, (R & B) Division Wanaparthy has provi8ded the requisite funds to meet the expenditure of

Rs.30,87,639=00 incurred in this award. Hereafter the land ac- quired shall vest with the Government and free from encum- brances.

8.The lands involved in the above sale transactions are lo- cated far away from the land under acquisition and not similar in nature, fertility and yielding pattern to that of the land under ac- quisition and hence these sales are discarded. Then there remain single sale at Sl.No.327 in which the land in Sy.No.872/B is in- volved. The land in Sy.No.872/B is similar in nature fertility and yielding pattern to that of the land under acquisition. Hence this sale is taken in to consideration in proposing the market value of the land under acquisition. The land in Sy.No.872/B to an extent of

Ac 1-10 guntas was sold vide registered sale deed No.355/2011,

dated:22-01-2011 for a consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- which

worked out to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The sale has been taken

Page No. 18 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 18 place (2) years prior to the publication of draft notification. The value of the lands under acquisition is increased in these two years. Also the land under acquisition is nearer to Gadwal Town and also these lands suitable for cotton crop cultivation. Keeping in view of the said reasons he propose the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.4,65,000/- per acre as approved by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar vide Ref.No.G1/54/2013, dated:

25-05-2013. Agricultural well is coming under acquisition in

Sy.No.885/2. On referring the matter the Executive Engineer, PR,

Gadwal has furnished the value of the 1) Agricultural well coming under acquisition vide Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Gadwal

Lr.No.DB/TO/275/2013, dated:29-05-2013, 2) Neem Trees and (4)

Kanuga Trees are coming under acquisition in Sy.No.885/2. On re- ferring the matter the Divisional Forest Officer, Mahabubnagar has furnished the value of the Trees coming under acquisition vide ref- erence No.Rc.No.218/S3/2013, dated:01-06-2013. The compensa- tion already awarded by the LAO is genuine and correct market rate of prevailing at the time of compensation and the claimants are not entitled for further compensation. Therefore, the respon- dent prayed to dismiss the OP confirming the LAO awarded amount with costs and interest.

Page No. 19 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 19

9.On behalf of the claimants PWs1 to 3 examined and

Ex.A1 to A6 marked. Ex.A1 is certificate issued by Public

Information Officer-cum-Commissioner Municipality, Gadwal

dated:23-02-2017 along with sketch map, Ex.A2 is Certified Copy

of Judgment in OP No.23 dated:09-11-2012 of Senior Civil Judge’s

Court, Gadwal, Ex.A3 is letter of LAO/RDO and Gadwal under which compensation amount related to OP No.23 of 2010 was deposited into the court, Ex.A4 is Certified Copy of award passed by

LAO/RDO, Gadwal in respect of land covered by OP.No.23 of 2010,

Ex.A5 is certified copy of Gadwal Village map and Ex.A6 is certified copy of order, dated:18-04-2019 passed in OP.No.46 of 2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal. On behalf of respondent, V.Ramulu, Revenue Divisional Officer examined as

RW1 and Ex. B-1 Award No.16 of 2013, dated: 15-06-2013 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

10.Heard arguments from both sides. The learned counsel for claimants filed written arguments.

11.Now the following points would emerge for determina- tion viz:-

1. Whether the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and reasonable and if not, for how much mar- ket value the claimants are entitled for?

Page No. 20 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 20

2. To what relief?

12. Point NOs.1 and 2:-The learned counsel for claimants has argued that the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the lands of Gadwal village and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed megre amount. He further argued that the lands acquired in

OP.No.23 of 2010 are adjacent to the lands of claimants and the

Land Acquisition Officer not taken the orders passed in OP.No.23 of 2010 while fixing the market value. He further argued that the claimants are entitled for the market value fixed on the basis of

OP.No.23 of 2010 with escalation and benefits.

13.On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government

Pleader has argued that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the mar- ket value by taking into consideration of nature of the land. He further argued that lands in OP.No.23 of 2010 and lands in the present O.P. are not one and the same.

14.PW1 Nagi Reddy in his chief examination reiterated the contents of the claim petition. Through him Ex.A1 to A6 marked.

PW1 is the claimant No.1 in the above O.P., and he filed his exami- nation-in-chief and reiterating the averments of claim statement and claimed to determine the market value of the acquired lands

Page No. 21 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 21 as Rs.3000/- per square yard categorizing as non agricultural land and possessed urban potentiality by the time of acquisition and

Ex.A1 to A6 were got marked. PW1 also further deposed that since there was diminition of similar lands around acquire lands in question and hence, no sales of similar lands were taken place as nobody was willing to part with their valuable lands.

15.The witness contends that in his additional chief exami- nation that the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal has passed OP NO.46 of 2016, dated:10-04-2019 pertaining to the same LAO-RDO, Gadwal

Award No.14 of 2013 dated:15-06-2013 for the land acquired for outer ring road Sy.No.900/2 an extent of Ac 0-31 guntas and Sec- tion 4 (1) notification is 19-04-2013 and the court enhanced the market value from Rs.5,15,000/- per acre to Rs.710.95 paise per square yard and also additional benefits such as 30% solatium, 12% additional market value, 9% interest and 15% interest etc., entitled as per amended Land Acquisition Act 1894. The above said document may be marked as Ex.A6. Further contends that his land and the Ex.A6 acquired land are similar in nature, having same biographical features, urban potentiality and also adjacent to the said land situated at Gadwal Municipality limits and already developed area and also very near to Broad Guage Railway line

Page No. 22 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 22 from Gadwal town to Raichur Karnataka. Furtherance Section 4 (1) notification of L.A. Act for their land is 04-02-2013 and the Ex.A6 land is 19-04-2013 only about two months difference. The Senior

Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal has enhanced the compensation

Rs.710.95 per square yard taking into consideration of all round development existing in adjoining areas and also increasing mar- ket value on account of various developmental activities that they already existed due to District Head Quarters, on the strength of the same documents Ex.A1 to A5, now he filed in this OP. But, whereas the Land Acquisition Officer has failed to take into consid- eration all the developed factors available and fixed in-adequate compensation. The value of the lands around their area are in- creasing day by day. Hence prayed to enhanced the market value of their acquired land in Sy.No.885/2 an extent of Ac 1-24 guntas at the rate of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per square yard and also grant additional benefits as per amended Land Ac- quisition Act of 1894.

16.The learned Assistant Government Pleader, Gadwal cross-examined PW1 in detail. PW1 in his cross-examination de- nied the suggestions made by the Assistant Government Pleader that the market value of Rs.4,65,000/- per acre fixed by the Land

Page No. 23 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 23

Acquisition Officer classifying the acquired lands as agricultural land is just and proper and as such the claim petitioners are not entitled to claim enhancement of compensation amount. He de- nied the suggestion that the market value fixed by the Land Acqui- sition Officer is true and correct and the lands in question and lands covered under Ex.A2 and A6 are not similar in nature and as such they are not entitled to any enhancement of compensation.

17.PW2 Sobhan Goud deposed that the then LAO and RDO,

Gadwal acquired their land Acs,0- 10 Gts, out of Sy.No,837/2 situ- ated in Gadwal Town by a draft notification U/S, 4(1) of LA Act

dated:17.03.2007 and the market value of the same was deter-

mined as Rs.17,000/- per acre by Award No. 6/2007 dated:- 04.08,2007 under Ex.A-4, On reference, the Hon'ble S.C.J. Court,

Gadwal after due inquiry under Ex.A-2 vide Order and Decree

dated:09.11.2002 in O.P. No.23 of 2010 determined and enhanced

the market value as Rs.354/- per Sq.Yd. from Rs.1700/- per acre with all statutory benefits as contemplated under Land Acquisition

Act. Against the said Order of the Hon'ble S.C.J. Court, Gadwal without filing any appeal, the LAO-RDO, Gadwal honouring the same deposited under Ex.A-3 the entire decretal amount to the credit of O.P.No.23 of 2010 and on such deposit the same was

Page No. 24 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 24 withdrawn by the concerned claim petitioners therein and hence, the same attained finality. He further deposed that the lands in question are having urban potentiality as they were already in- cluded in Gadwal Town municipal limits and located in prime local- ity surrounded by industrial establishments etc., by the time of no- tification itself and was having market value of Rs.3000/- per square yard. He further deposed that their lands covered under

Ex.A-2 and the lands in question are similar in nature. He denied the suggestion that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition

Officer is true and correct and the lands in question and their lands covered under Ex.A-2 are not similar in nature and as such the claimants are not entitled to any enhancement of compensation.

18.PW3 Ramakrishna Goud deposed that the then LAO and

RDO, Gadwal acquired their land Acs.0-31 Gts. out of Sy.No.900/2 situated in Gadwal Town by a draft notification U/S. 4(1) of LA Act

dated:19-04-2013 and the market value of the same was deter-

mined as Rs.5,15,000/- per acre by Award No.14/2013 dated:15- 06-2013. On reference, the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal un- der Ex.A-6 Order and Decree dated:18-04-2019 in O.P. No.46 of 2016 determined the market value as Rs.710.95/- per square yard from Rs. 5,15,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits as contem-

Page No. 25 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 25 plated under Land Acquisition Act. Against the said Order of the

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal without fling any appeal, the

LAO-RD0, Gadwal honouring the same deposited the entire decre- tal amount to the credit of O.P.No.46 of 2016 and on such deposit the same was withdrawn by the concerned claim petitioners therein and hence, the same attained finality. He further deposed that the lands in question are having urban potentiality as they were already included in Gadwal Town Municipal Limits and lo- cated in prime locality surrounded by industrial establishment etc., by the time of notification itself and was having market value of

Rs.3,000/- per square yard. He further deposed that their lands covered under Ex A-6 and the lands in question are similar in nature. He denied the suggestion that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is true and correct and the lands in question and their lands covered under Ex.A6 are not similar in na- ture and as such the claimants are not entitled to any enhance- ment of compensation.

19.On behalf of Respondent, the present Land Acquisition officer-cum-Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal by name V.Ramulu was examined as RW1 and got marked Award No.l6/2013 dated:

15-06-2013 as Ex.B-1. He reiterated the contents of the reply

Page No. 26 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 26 statement and prayed for to dismiss the above O.P. with costs. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the acquired lands in question are situated in Gadwal Municipal Town and surrounded by industrial establishments, he also further admitted that since there was diminition of similar lands around acquire lands in question and hence, no sales of similar lands were taken place as nobody was willing to part with their valuable lands, but denied that the lands were possessing market value of Rs.3000- per square yard by the time of notification itself. He also categorically admitted in his cross examination that the contents of Ex A-l are true and cor- rect stating as the acquired lands were included in the Gadwal mu- nicipality and he also categorically admitted that the contents of

Ex.A-5 are true and correct and he also further admitted that the earlier acquisition matters covered under Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-6 at- tained finality as entire decretal amount deposited to the credit of

Exs.A-2 and A-6 without filing any appeal and on such deposit, the concerned claimants have also withdrawn the compensation amount, but he denied the suggestion that, the lands covered un- der Ex.A-2 and A-6 are similar in nature to the lands in question.

20.Ex.A-1 is the intimation letter dated:23-02-2017 issued by the Public Relation Officer, Gadwal Municipality in file No.

Page No. 27 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 27 1473/2016. On perusal of Ex.A.1 it is revealed that the acquired lands in question are included in Gadwal Municipal limits. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of order and decree dated:09-11-2013 in O.P.

No.23 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal whereby and where under, the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal enhanced the market value of the lands covered therein as

Rs.354/- per square yard from Rs.4,65,000/- per acre categorizing as non-agricultural lands. The notification of the same is issued on 17-03-2003. Ex.A3 is code form "D" appendix "C" (CC form) whereby and where under the Land Acquisition Officer honouring the order under Ex.A.2 deposited entire decretal amount without filing any appeal. Ex.A-4 is the copy of Award No.6/2007 dated:

04-08-2007 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer whereby and where under, he determined the market value of the lands as

Rs.4,65,000/- per acre categorizing the lands as agricultural lands.

Ex.A-5 is the map of Gadwal town and its surrounding lands in- cluded in the municipal limits. Ex.A-6 is the certified copy of order and decree dated:18-04-2019 in O.P. No.46 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal whereby and where under, the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal enhanced the market value of the lands covered therein as Rs.710.95/- per square yard from

Page No. 28 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 28

Rs.5,15,000/- per acre categorizing as non-agricultural lands. The notification of the same is issued on 19-04-2013. Ex.B-1 is the copy of the Award No.l6/2013 dated:15-06-2013 passed by the

LAO cum RDO, Gadwal.

21.The claimants are relying on Ex.A1 to A6. Ex.A1 is origi- nal letter No.1473/2016, dated:23-02-2017 furnishing draft

Gazette publication G.O.Ms.No.388 Municipal administration and

Urban Development (Elec-1) Department lands included under

Gadwal Municipality and Original Master plan copy of Gadwal Mu- nicipality. It shows that the land in Sy.No.900/2 included in Gadwal

Municipality. Ex.A2 is certified copy of the Judgment of Senior Civil

Judge, Gadwal passed in OP.No.23 of 2010 on 09-11-2012. It

shows that this court enhanced compensation amount in respect of land in Sy.No.837/2 to an extent of Ac 0-10 guntas, from

Rs.17,000/- to Rs.354/- per square yard in award No.6/2017,

dated:04-08-2017. Ex.A3 is certified copy of letter No.E/

4437/2012, dated:06-06-2012 of LAO/RDO, Gadwal along with “D” form depositing decretal amount of Rs.13,50,574/- decretal amount pertaining to Judgment in OP No.23 of 2010 dated:09-11- 2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal. It shows that in OP

No.23 of 2010 the RDO/LAO deposited the enhanced amount be-

Page No. 29 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 29 fore this court. Ex.A4 is certified copy of LAO/RDO, Gadwal Award

No.6 of 2017, dated:04-08-2017 in which land of claimant under

OP No.23 of 2010, dated:09-11-2012 acquired by LAO/RDO, Gad-

wal arising out of under Section 30 and 31 of OP.No.29 of 2012 in which adjudicated claimant of OP.No.23 of 2010 as original claimant and filed enhancement petition under Section 18 of the

L.A. Act, 1894, Ex.A5 is certified copy of Gadwal village map show- ing all industries and amenities.

22.On perusal of Ex.A2, it shows that the lands of the claimants in OP No.23 of 2010 acquired for the purpose of con- struction of Broad Guage Railway Line from Gadwal to Raichur.

The present lands also situated at Gadwal. Therefore, the claimants are entitled enhanced compensation on the basis of

Ex.A2.

23.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent decision reported in AHASANUL HODA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (AIR 2013 SC 3463) has categorically held by placing reliance on earlier deci- sion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GENERAL MANAGER

ONGC LIMITED Vs. RAMESH BHAI JILVANBHAI PATEL (2008)

14 SCC 745 that in the absence of other acceptable evidence, cu-

Page No. 30 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 30 mulative increase of 10 to 15% per annum on the compensation is permissible.

24.It is manifest that the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act in this case is issued on 04-02-2013. It is evident for Ex.A2 OP No.23 of 2010 the notification issued on 17- 03-2003. Thus there is a time lag of 9 years 10 months and 18 days between two notifications. Therefore in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AHASANUL HODA’S case, the claimants are entitled for increase of 10% market value on the compensation amount of Rs.354/- per square yard which is now fixed by this court which comes to Rs.710.95 paise per square yard (354 x 9 x 10% = 318.60 paise) and for ten months eighteen days it comes to Rs.30.84 paise (354 x 9% = 31.86 x 318/365 = 30.84) total comes to Rs.703.44 paise (354 + 318.60 + 30.84 = 703.44 paise). Therefore, the claimants are entitled for enhance- ment of compensation of Rs.703.44 paise rounded of Rs.703=00/- per square yard against the award passed by the Land Acquisition

Officer. Accordingly these points are answered.

25.In the result, the award is passed directing the respon- dent to pay compensation to the claimants as mentioned below af-

Page No. 31 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 31 ter deducting the amount already received by the claimants under protest.

i.The market value is fixed at Rs.703/- (Rupees seven hun- dred and three only) per square yard as against the amount of Rs.4,65,000/- per acre fixed by the Land Acquisi- tion Officer.

ii.The claimants are also entitled to additional market value @ 12% per annum from the date of notification under sec- tion 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act to the date of award i.e., from 04-02-2013 to 15-06-2013.

iii. The claimants are entitled to 30% solatium under Section 23 (2) of Land Acquisition Act.

iv. The claimants are entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on the market value, additional market value, solatium from the date of possession i.e., 15-06-2013 to 14-06-2014.

v.The claimants are also entitled for interest @ 15% per an- num on the market value, additional market value, so- latium from 15-06-2014 to till realization of amount.

vi. The claimants are entitled for cost and advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

Page No. 32 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 32

Typed to my dictation, to the Stenographer corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 24th day of April,

2023.

Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

CLAIMANTS: RESPONDENT:

P.W.1 Nagi ReddyR.W-1. V.Ramulu

P.W. 2 Shobhan Goud

P.W. 3 Ramakrishna Goud

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

CLAIMANTS:

Ex.A1 is certificate issued by Public Information Officer-cum-Com- missioner Municipality, Gadwal dated:23-02-2017 along with sketch map.

Ex.A2 is Certified Copy of Judgment in OP No.23 dated:09-11-2012 of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal.

Ex.A3 is letter of LAO/RDO and Gadwal under which compensation amount related to OP No.23 of 2010 was deposited into the court.

Ex.A4 is Certified Copy of award passed by LAO/RDO, Gadwal in re- spect of land covered by OP.No.23 of 2010.

Ex.A5 is certified copy of Gadwal Village map.

Ex.A6 is certified copy of order, dated:18-04-2019 passed in

OP.No.46 of 2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal.

Page No. 33 of total 33 Pages. LAOP NO.37 OF 2016 33

RESPONDENT:

Ex. B-1 Award No.16 of 2013, dated: 15-06-2013 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal.

Page No. 1 of total 20 Pages. Judgment AS.No.10 of 2019

Fair copy

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPA DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, JOGULAMBA GADWAL.

Present: Smt.M.Kanaka Durga,

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Jogulamba Gadwal

Monday, this the 24th day of April, 2023

A.S. No. 10 of 2019

Between:

1. Hanmanna S/o Hanmanna, Age: 63 Yrs, (died per L.Rs. plaintiff No.2 to 5).

2. Pedda Eeranna S/o late Hanumanna, Age: 45 Yrs,

3. Chinna Eeranna S/o late Hanumanna, Age: 43 Yrs,

4. Pedda Eeramma D/o late Hanumana, Age: 60 Yrs,

5. Chinna Eeramma D/o late Hanumana, Age: 40 Yrs,

All are Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Shankapur H/O: Utrtanoor Village of Ieeja Mandal. …Appellants

And

1. Ramanna S/o Thayappa, Age: 48 Yrs,

2. Venkatramulu S/o Thayappa, Age: 45 Yrs,

Both are Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Sankapur H/O: Uttanoor Village of Ieeja Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. …Respondents

On Appeal Under Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree Dated:22-01-2019 in O.S.No.128 of 2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal.

Between:

1. Hanmanna S/o Hanmanna, Age: 63 Yrs,

Page No. 2 of total 20 Pages. Judgment AS.No.10 of 2019 (died per L.Rs., plaintiff No.2 to 5).

2. Pedda Eeranna S/o late Hanumanna, Age: 45 Yrs,

3. Chinna Eeranna S/o late Hanumanna, Age: 43 Yrs,

4. Pedda Eeramma D/o late Hanumana, Age: 60 Yrs,

5. Chinna Eeramma D/o late Hanumana, Age: 40 Yrs,

All are Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Shankapur H/O: Utrtanoor Village of Ieeja Mandal. (As per orders in IA No.870/16 dated: 09-03-2018, the plaintiff NOs.2 to 5 added as parties to the suit being L.Rs. of plaintiff No.1). …Plaintiffs

And

1. Ramanna S/o Thayappa, Age: 48 Yrs,

2. Venkatramulu S/o Thayappa, Age: 45 Yrs,

Both are Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Sankapur H/O: Uttanoor Village of Ieeja Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. …Defendants

This Appeal Suit is coming before me for final hearing on 15-02-2023 in the presence of Sri R.Raghu Rami Reddy,

Advocate for Appellants/Plaintiffs and of Sri M.Gangadhar,

Advocate for Respondent/Defendant and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the court below and the present appeal is preferred aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22-01-

Page No. 3 of total 20 Pages. Judgment AS.No.10 of 2019 2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal in OS No. 128 of 2012, wherein, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. This appeal filed by the appellants praying the court be pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree

dated:22-01-2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal.

2.This suit is filed for declaration of title of plaintiffs as owners and for recovery of possession of suit schedule prop- erty from defendants.

The brief facts of the plaintiffs case are as follows:

The plaintiff No.1 is the owner, pattedar of land in Sy.No. 441/

A to an extent of Ac. 4-27 gts., situated at Uttanoor village.

Originally the suit schedule land belongs to father of plaintiff

No.1 Hanmanna S/o Rangadu. The plaintiff No.1 was sole son of his father, after demise of his father, plaintiff No.1 suc - ceeded the same from his father. Since then he is in continu- ous possession and enjoyment of the same without any inter- ruption. The defendants having no rights over the suit sched- ule land and to grab the land, they managed the then Tahsil- dar and got ROR in their favour as pattedars. In fact, father of plaintiff or plaintiff No.1 never disposed the suit land to the de-

Page No. 4 of total 20 Pages. Judgment AS.No.10 of 2019 fendants. The Tahasildar, Ieeja has not followed the principles of natural justice and no notice is served on plaintiff No.1 and no opportunity was given to him. The plaintiff No.1 filed appeal

before R.D.O, Gadwal against the orders of the Tahasildar vide

file No. C/1599/09 on 01.09.2009 and obtained Status quo or- ders on 09.09.2009. The plaintiff No.1 came to know that de- fendants got inserted their names in the revenue records on 17.10.2012. The defendants created the pattedar pass books and title deeds. Hence plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 are entitled for dec- laration and recovery of possession. Hence the suit.

3.The defendants filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable. It is denied that plaintiff is owner and pattedar of land in Sy.No. 441/A to an extent of Ac.

4-27 gts. The defendants are owners, possessors of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that Thayappa S/o

Narsanna share holder got land in Sy.No. 441/A to an extent of

Ac. 4-27 gts., and he handed over the same to father of de- fendants by name Thayanna S/o P. Mallaiah and the defen- dants are in possession, as owner since long time and ROR ef- fected in the year 1994. The suit of the plaintiff is barred by

Page No. 5 of total 20 Pages. Judgment AS.No.10 of 2019 limitation. The plaintiff never in possession of suit schedule land. The defendants ancestors got possession of the land and continued in possession as owners. The defendants paid land revenue for the year 1987-88, 1998-89, 1992-93 and obtained loan from ING Vysya Bank Limited, Ieeja by depositing the title deeds since 1998. It is therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whetherthe plaintiffis entitled to be de- clare as a owner and pattedar to the suit schedule land?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of pos- session of suit schedule land from the defendant?

3. To what relief?

On 10.07.2018 the following additional issues are framed for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 are entitled for de- cree of declaration of title over the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of posses- sion of suit schedule properties?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

5.On behalf of plaintiffs, first plaintiff Hanmanna exam-

Page No. 6 of total 20 Pages. Judgment AS.No.10 of 2019 ined as Pw1 and through him Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked. Kurva

Savaranna, Uppari Ramudu examined as PWs. 2 and 3. On be- half of defendants, first defendant Ramanna himself examined as Dw1 and through him Ex.B1 to Ex.B33 marked. Golla Pulla- iah examined as Dw2. Dasari Naganna chief examination affi- davit filed as Dw3 but his evidence is eschewed. Golla Esh- waranna examined as Dw4.

6.The trail court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence of Pw.1, to Pw.3 and Ex. A.1 to Ex, A.4 of the Appellants/Plaintiffs, whose evidence is trust worthy, cogent and convincing. The trail court failed to note that the respondent/defendants have no evidence both oral and documentary worth the name to substantiate their claim over the suit schedule property. The trail Court also failed to point out admissions taken by the respondent/Defendants, which are goes to affect the root of their version and simply discarded without assigning any reasons. The trail Court given much importance with regard to the oral and documentary evidence of respondent/Defendants more particularly Ex.B.33 which is inadmissible document in evidence and other documents are

Page No. 7 of total 20 Pages. Judgment AS.No.10 of 2019 not substantiate the claim of the defendants over the suit schedule property and that too in such like a cases of suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

7.The written statement of the defendants in lower court itself proves the case of the appellants/Plaintiffs. In written stamen of the defendants in Para No: 3 in sixth line clearly taken admission that "The Plaintiff with dishonest intention to extract monies filed the suit, neither the plaintiff nor his father concern to the suit survey number land, expect entry is Khasra.

It means the ancestors of the Plaintiffs are exclusive owners and possessors of the suit land. Moreover in the written statement the defendants not taken any plea that they are purchased the suit land from the Plaintiffs or their ancestors through any unregister document, but surprisingly at the belated stage of the case they are introduced the Ex. B.33 which is inadmissible document, but the lower court given legal validity which is against the law. Moreover the defendants taken a plea that they are in adverse possession over the suit land, but they are not proved the main ingredient of uninterrupted continue

Page No. 8 of total 20 Pages. Judgment AS.No.10 of 2019 possession of the statutory period as per law of adverse possession against the true owner, In the pleadings of the defendants and in their chief examination affidavits in lower court stating different pleas on the aspect that they acquired the suit land by way of adverse possession against the true owner and also taken totally against plea that they are acquire the suit land through unregistered sale deed, as per law such two pleas are not permissible to claim any immovable property of others. It is a fact that in suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession the initial burden lies on the Plaintiffs.

But, where plea of adverse possession or plea of ownership basing on any unregistered instrument the burden automatically shifted on who asserted that pleas. In this case squarely the defendant's taking such pleas, so such burden must be shifted on other side by proving their case by way of factually and legally. But the defendants failed to prove on that aspect, hence, the plaintiffs successfully proved their case in lower court, but the lower court ought to have decree the suit but dismissed on dark surmises and without legally maintainable presumptions. So, viewed in any angle the finding

Page No. 9 of total 20 Pages. Judgment AS.No.10 of 2019 of the lower court suffers legality and fact hence reconsideration of legality and fact is necessary in present appeal filed before your lordship. The other grounds will be urged at the time of final submissions. Therefore prayed the court may be pleased to allow the appeal by set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower and pass a judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit in OS No.128 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil judge at Gadwal.

Whether the petitioners/appellants are entitled to seek for relief of setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower court in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit in OS No.128 of 2012

on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal.

8.The appellants contends that the trial court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence of PWs1 to 3 and Ex.A1 to A4 of the appellants/plaintiffs though their evidence is trustworthy, cogent and convenience. The trial court while appreciating the evidence on record much weight was given to the Ex.B33 which is unregistered sale deed allegedly executed by Kurva Thayanna in favour of Kurva

Thayappa in respect of land in Sy.No.441/A to an extent of Ac 4- 26 guntas.

Page No. 10 of total 20 Pages. Judgment AS.No.10 of 2019

9.Originally the suit filed for declaration of title the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish that he has got valid title and possession over the suit schedule property. In support of the contention of the plaintiff, plaintiff relied on Ex.A1 to A4.

Ex.A1 is certified copy of Kasra pahani for the year 1954-55,

Ex.A2 is certified copy of pahani for the year 1987-88, Ex.A3 is certified copy of ROR extract and Ex.A4 is status quo order.

Ex.A1 Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 which shows

Hanumadu S/o Rangadu as pattadar for land in Sy.No.441/A to an extent of Ac 4-27 guntas, Ex.A2 is pahani for the year 1987-88 which shows that Hanumanna S/o Ranganna mentioned as Pattadar and Narsanna name mentioned as possessor of land in Sy.No.441/A to an extent of Ac 4-27 guntas.

Ex.A3 is ROR extract pertaining to the land in Sy.NO.441/A to an extent of Ac 4-27 guntas in the name of Ramanna S/o

Thayappa shows as pattadar. Ex.A4 is the status quo order passed by RDO., dated:09-09-2009 on the petitioner of

Hanumanna. The plaintiffs contends that the defendants have no rights over the suit schedule land and to grab the land they managed the then Tahsildar and got ROR., in their favour as the

Page No. 11 of total 20 Pages. Judgment AS.No.10 of 2019 pattadars. In fact the father of the plaintiff or plaintiff NO.1 never disposed the suit land to the defendants. The Tahsildar

Ieeja has not follows the principles of natural justice and no notice served on the plaintiff No.1 and no opportunity was given to him. The plaintiff No.1 filed an appeal before the RDO.,

Gadwal against the orders of Tahsildar, vide file No.C/1599/09 and obtained status quo order on 09-09-2009. The plaintiff No.1 came to know that the defendants got inserted their names in the revenue records on 17-10-2012. The defendants got created pattadar passbooks title deeds, hence plaintiffs No.1 to 5 are entitled to declaration and recovery of possession. Hence the suit.

10.On the other hand the defendants claiming that under

Ex.A33 the said land was purchased by Kurva Thayappa from

Kurva Thayanna S/o Kurva Narsanna. Thayappa S/o Narsanna shareholder got land in Sy.No.441/A to an extent of Ac 4-27 guntas and he handed over the same to the father of defendants by name Thayanna S/o P.Mallaiah and the defendants are in possession, as owners since long time and

ROR effected in the year 1994. The suit is barred by limitation

Page No. 12 of total 20 Pages. Judgment AS.No.10 of 2019 and they were never in possession of the property the defendants ancestors got possession of the land and continued possession as owners. The defendants paid land revenue for the year 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1992-93.

11.Perused the record along with documents filed by the parties on record and judgment of the lower court. The case of the plaintiff No.1 is the owner and pattadar of the land bearing

Sy.NO.441/A an extent of Ac 4-27 guntas situated at Utnoor village of Ieeja Mandal which is ancestral property. Originally the above said land belonged to father of plaintiff No.1 i.e.,

Hanumanna S/o Rangadu R/o: Sankapur H/o Utnoor Village who had succeeded the said land from his ancestors. The said aspect clearly establishes through Ex.a1 to A4 clearly proved the ownership and possessor of the suit land. After demise of the father of plaintiff No.1 he succeeded the same from his father and since then he is having continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said land without any interruption from anybody till today. The same was denied by the defendant in his written stating by claiming the suit land by way of two different versions i.e., by way of adverse possession

Page No. 13 of total 20 Pages. Judgment AS.No.10 of 2019 and by way of basing on the title which is against the law. The lower court has not framed any issue over the claiming of the suit land by the defendants by way of adverse possession.

When I perused the issues framed by the lower court that

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare the pattadar as owner and pattadar of the suit schedule land?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of suit schedule land from the defendants?

3) To what relief?

On 10-07-2018 the following additional issues framed by the lower court:

1) Whether plaintiff No.2 to 5 are entitled for decree of declaration of tile over the suit schedule property.

2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties.

3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation.

12.So far as the claiming of the possession of the suit schedule properties by way of adverse possession of the defendants have not taken any plea of adverse possession in their written statement. The respondents contending that the defendant No.1 was continuous possession and enjoyment since 1982 to till today and Ex.B33 document which is 38 years old

Page No. 14 of total 20 Pages. Judgment AS.No.10 of 2019 documents may be presumed as genuine u/s 90 of Indian

Evidence Act. Ex.B33 shows that the respondent/defendants their late father had purchased the suit land from Thayanna S/o

Narsappa and got impounded and paid stamp duty having suit land possession, title was corroborated by the defendants by late father vendor and since then the defendant No.1 is in continuous possession and they can claim pela of adverse possession. At the appellate stage they cannot claim adverse possession at appeal stage. The lower court also in its judgment dated: 22-01-2019 never settled the said issue as the trial was not taken up on that aspect. Therefore, at the time of appeal the defendants cannot take plea of adverse possession.

The appellants contended that the respondent/defendants in their written statement before lower court in para No.3 in 6th line clearly taken admission that “The plaintiff with dishonest intention to extract monies filed the suit, neither the plaintiff nor his father consent to the suit survey number land except entry in Khasra”. The said version of the respondent/defendants clearly establishes that the ancestors opf the plaintiffs are exclusive owners and possessor of the suit land. Moreover, in

Page No. 15 of total 20 Pages. Judgment AS.No.10 of 2019 their written statement the respondents/defendants not taken any plea that they are purchased the suit land from the plaintiffs or their ancestors through any un-registered document but surprisingly at the belated stage of the case they are introduced Ex.B33 which is inadmissible document, but the lower court given legal validity which is against the law. So far as the Ex.B33 is concerned which is an un-registered document allegedly executed by Kurva Thayanna S/o Kurva Narsanna in favour of Kurva Thayappa on 22-07-1982. Now it is the duty of the court to see whether the Ex.B33 which is un-registered document can be taken into consideration to decide the title and ownership of the parties relying on it.

Effects of non-registration of documents:

A document is always needed to be registered to avoid any mis-happenings. If a document is not registered anyhow, as per section 49 of the registration act of 1929. A non-registered doc- ument affects the validity of ownership of a property. A docu- ment that needs to be registered, if not registered within the specified time, will not be valid further. A non-registered docu- ment will not confer any power to adopt on any person. A non-

Page No. 16 of total 20 Pages. Judgment AS.No.10 of 2019 registered document cannot get considered as evidence in the court of law or at any other place for a dispute arising out of such a document. Registration of a document is always manda- tory, which always cost a reasonable prescribed fee as per the registration act and stamp duty. If the rules and procedure of section 17 of the registration act are not followed at the time of registration, it may render the document invalid and ineffective.

So, further, that document cannot be made admissible as a piece of evidence anywhere. In simple words, a registered doc- ument will act as a guard to protect immovable property from any form of encroachment or acquiring property by title decep- tion. An original owner of a property should always have regis- tered documents to prevent loss and enforce his rights in a court of law.

13.Herein the instant case the lower court has given validity under Ex.B33 believing that the said document valid document. It is settled proposition of law that when un- registered document is relying by the parties it is the duty of the parties to prove the same by way of examining the executants and with attestors of the documents. In the instant

Page No. 17 of total 20 Pages. Judgment AS.No.10 of 2019 case the defendants did not examine the validity of the document, the lower court also believed the version of the defendants but the lower court was kept silence the document when the appellants/plaintiffs filed Ex.A4 which is the Status- quo orders passed by the RDO on the petition filed by the plaintiff dated 01-09-2009 an application filed by the Hanmanna

S/o Hanmanna before RDO by way of appeal stating that

Hanmanna is owner and possessor of the land bearing

Sy.No.441/A in an extent of Ac.4-27 guntas situated at Uthanoor village of Ieeja Mandal which is his ancestral property and he succeeded the said property from his father being a sole son of his deceased father and he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land without any interruption by anybody.

The respondent i.e., Ramanna S/o Thayappa having no right and tile or concerned over the said land and try to grab the said land and got pattadar and title pass books in his favour. The said

Tahsildar without giving any notice an opportunity issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of Ramanna aggrieved by the same he made an application to the MRO for setting aside the orders of the Tahsildar and issue directions to

Page No. 18 of total 20 Pages. Judgment AS.No.10 of 2019 insert his name as appellant in the relevant columns of the revenue records. As per the said Ex.A4 no further orders filed by the appellant/plaintiff issued by the RDO. When the matter is pending before RDO the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and the revenue records which are filed by the defendants also in question how they got the pattadar pass book and title deeds in their favour. As the appellants/plaintiffs after knowing the fact that the defendants names were inserted in the revenue records and pass book also issued in his favour as such he filed before the court for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Neither the plaintiff/appellant nor the defendants did not speak about the orders RDO when an application filed by the appellant before RDO for consideration.

Therefore, the documents which are Ex.A1 toA4 filed on behalf of appellants/plaintiffs believed to be correct as Ex.B33 though it is 30 years old document but it is an un-registered document therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration for deciding the title of the defendants and the lower court without deciding and seeing the orders of the RDO proceeded against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit but when the plaintiffs establishes their

Page No. 19 of total 20 Pages. Judgment AS.No.10 of 2019 case by way of oral and documentary evidence the lower court has to decided and passed the judgment by dismissing the suit without considering the Ex.A4 even without deciding the application pending before RDO the plaintiffs cannot get any relief from the civil court therefore, it is for the plaintiffs to approach the revenue authorities to decide the appeal dated 01-09-2009 unless and until the RDO passed the orders the civil court cannot decide the rights of the parties the plaintiff/appellants to the extent of the documents filed by him shows his possession on the date of filing of the suit.

14.In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the lower court judgment, dated 22-01-2019. No costs. The appellants/plaintiffs are directed to approach Revenue Divisional

Officer and get the order on his appeal until then, the documents which are filed by the defendants have no validity in the eye of law.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 24th day of April, 2023.

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal.

Page No. 20 of total 20 Pages. Judgment AS.No.10 of 2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-- Nil –

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal.

TSJG000002422018 Presented on : 28-12-2018 Registered on : 28-12-2018 Decided on : 24-04-2023 Duration : 4 years, 3 months, 27 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal District and Sessions Judge Gadwal AT

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Presided Over by Smt. M. Kanaka Durga

EP/107/2018

Exhibit No.:

: M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited Age: 45 Occupation : Address: Kurnool

VERSUS : G.P.Pulla Reddy Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Chagapuram 2:G.Satyamma Age: 0 Occupation : Thimmapur 3:Mirza Wahed Baig Age: 0 Occupation : Gadwa ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : B.Satyanarayana Advocate for : appearing for G.P.Pulla Reddy: Advocate , appearing for 2, 3 respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 24-04-2023 )

ORDER

D.Hr counsel present filed not press memo, same is

endorsed on petition. Hence this petition is dismissed as not

pressed.

Date : 24-04-2023 (Smt. M. Kanaka Durga)

Principal District and Sessions Judge Gadwal

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Smt. M. Kanaka Durga) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS

TSJG000001692017 Presented on : 11-09-2017 Registered on : 15-09-2017 Decided on : 24-04-2023 Duration : 5 years, 7 months, 13 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal District and Sessions Judge Gadwal AT

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Presided Over by Smt. M.Kanaka Durga

EP/113/2017

Exhibit No.:

: Shriram City Union Finance Age: 42 Occupation : Address: Gadwal

VERSUS : Abdul Khadir Malim Bashir Ahmed Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Gadwal 2:Iftakar Ahmed Age: 0 Occupation : Gadwa ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : B.Gopal Reddy Advocate for : T.Manohar appearing for Abdul Khadir Malim Bashir Ahmed: Advocate appearing for 2 respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 24-04-2023 )

ORDER

D.Hr counsel present filed not press memo, same is endorsed on petition. Hence this petition is dismissed as not pressed.

Date : 24-04-2023 (Smt. M.Kanaka Durga)

Principal District and Sessions Judge Gadwal

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Smt. M.Kanaka Durga) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS

TSJG000000122020 Presented on : 03-02-2020 Registered on : 03-02-2020 Decided on : 24-04-2023 Duration : 3 years, 2 months, 21 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal District and Sessions Judge Gadwal AT

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Presided Over by Smt. M. Kanaka Durga

EP/10/2020

Exhibit No.:

: Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Age: 45 Occupation : Address: Gadwal

VERSUS : J.Kavitha - JDR3 Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Shanthinagar ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : B.Satyanarayana Advocate for : appearing for J.Kavitha - JDR3: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 24-04-2023 )

ORDER

D.Hr counsel present filed not press memo, same is endorsed on petition. Hence this petition is dismissed as not pressed

Date : 24-04-2023 (Smt. M. Kanaka Durga)

Principal District and Sessions Judge Gadwal

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Smt. M. Kanaka Durga) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS