Smt. Y. Padma

LAOP No. 976/2015

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (II FTC) WARANGAL 

AT JANGAON

Monday, the 2nd day of August, 2021.

Present: SMT. Y. PADMA, IV Addl. District Judge, Warangal FAC­V Addl. District Judge, (II FTC) Warangal at Jangaon

L.A.O.P.NO. 976 OF 2015.

BETWEEN:

1) Dandu Balaiah S/o Mallaiah, R/o Inapur village of Cherial Mandal.

2) Dandu Chandraiah S/o Yellaiah, R/o Inapur village of Cherial Mandal.

3) Dandu Kalamma W/oYellaiah, R/o Inapur village of Cherial Mandal.

4) Dandu Krishna Rao S/o Yellaiah, R/o Inapur village of Cherial Mandal.

5) Dandu Mallaiah S/o Chinna Balaiah, R/o Inapur (v) of Cherial Mandal.

6) Dandu Mallaiah S/o Yellaiah, R/o Inapur village of Cherial Mandal.

7) Dandu Mariyamma W/o Chinnaposhaiah, R/o Inapur (v) of Cherial Mdl.

8) Dandu Rajaiah S/o Mallaiah, R/o Inapur village of Cherial Mandal.

9) Dandu Venugopal S/o Pedda Poshaiah, R/o Inapur (v) of Cherial Mandal.

10) Dandu Yadaiah S/o Chinna Balaiah, R/o Inapur (v) of Cherial Mandal.

11) Dandu Yadaiah S/o Yellaiah, R/o Inapur village of Cherial Mandal.

12) Karolla Yellamma W/o Mallaiah, R/o Inapur village of Cherial Mandal.

.. Petitioners.

AND

Land Acquisition Officer, SDC, JCRGLIP, Hanamkonda... Respondents.

This case is coming before me on this day for final disposal in the presence of Sri K. Venkatesh, Advocate for the petitioners and of Addl. 

Government Pleader, Advocate for respondent; upon hearing from both sides and upon considering the material evidence available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court delivered the following: 

J U D G M E N T

1)This reference was made by the Special Deputy Collector­cum­Land 

Acquisition Officer of Jangaon to fix the fair market value of the lands forming part of survey Nos. 619, 620, 621, 622, 628, 630, 633, 659, 660, 662 and 663 situated Inapur village of Cherial Mandal, Warangal District acquired for Width statements and drawings of surplus Course of Inapur 

Pedda Cheruvu tank under the Award dated 31­01­2014.

2)The facts leading to the above reference are as follows :

1/11V ADJ, JN

LAOP No. 976/2015

On 05.06.2013, the Executive Engineer GLIS Division­IV of JCR/GLIT, 

Warangal has filed a requisition before the Authorities for acquisition of the lands to an extent of Ac. 27­05 gts., situated at Inapur village for the above public purpose. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land acquisition Act (herein after referred as L.A. Act in short) was published in the gazette on 29­07­2013 and draft declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. 

Act was published in the gazette on 30­07­2013 and it was published in various news papers which were in circulation in the said locality and finally draft declaration was effected on 05­08­2013. The land acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred as L.A.O. In short) conducted the award enquiry and after considering 356 sale transactions took place in respect of the lands situated at Inapur village in 3 years preceding to the publication of the draft notice I.e, from 06­08­2010 to 05­08­2013 and fixed the market value @ Rs. 

1,60,000/­ per acre in respect of the dry lands and Rs. @ 1,70,000/­ per acre in respect of wet lands. The Special Collector has approved the above valuations in vide proceedings No. B1/1920/2013, dated: 18­10­2013 and passed the Award accordingly on 31.01.2014. Some of the owners of the land received compensation. However the petitioners filed the petitions for re­determination of the proper market value and received the compensation under protest. In the above circumstances the Special Deputy Collector cum land acquisition Officer referred the matter under section 18 of the L.A. Act to this Court.

3)The claimant No.1 filed the claim statement and claimants No.2 to 12 adopted the statement of Claimant No.1 and they contending that the lands acquired are more potential in value, the L.A.O. has not conducted the fair and proper enquiry and erroneously fixed the market value. Infact the existing market value is more than 10,00,000/­ per acre and the lands acquired are near to the road leading to National Highway and the 

Komaravelli temple, therefore prayed to re­determinate the market value and fix the same at the rate of Rs.3000/­ per sq.yard in respect of dry lands and at the rate of Rs.4000/­ per sq.yard in respect of wet lands, to grant 12% of an additional Market Value for a period of 179 days from 05.08.2013 on which draft notification was issued and to 31.01.2014 on which Award was passed and to grant 30% of solatium and interest at the rate of 9% for the first year, over an additional compensation and thereafter at the rate of 15% till deposit of difference of compensation.

2/11V ADJ, JN

LAOP No. 976/2015

4)Learned Government Pleader filed counter denying the contentions of the claimants and contended that the compensation fixed by the L.A.O is just and reasonable and after considering 356 sale transactions took place in the said village compensation was fixed. The said lands are not suitable for the house sites and they are only an agricultural lands and more particularly they are suitable for cultivation of dry crops and prayed to dismiss the petition and confirm the Award.

5)Now the point for consideration is whether the value that was fixed by the land acquisition officer @ Rs. 1,60,000/­ per acre to dry lands and @ Rs. 

1.70,000/­ per acre for wet lands is reasonable, or liable to be modified, if to be modified to what extent?

6)On behalf of the claimants, claimant No. 9 himself examined as PW1 and Sub­Registrar of Cheriyal as PW2 and relied on Ex. A1 to Ex.A10 and on behalf of respondent, Special deputy Collector­cum­ Land acquisition Officer of Irrigation Projects, Jangaon was examined as DW1 and relied on Ex. B1 to 

Ex.B3.

7)Heard both sides, and counsel for the claimants filed written arguments.

POINT: Now the point for consideration is whether the value that was fixed by the land acquisition officer @ Rs. 1,60,000/­ per acre to dry lands and @ Rs. 1.70,000/­ per acre for wet lands is reasonable, or liable to be modified, if to be modified to what extent?

8)Counsel for the claimants vehemently submitted that lands in survey 

Nos. 619, 620, 621, 622, 628, 630, 633, 659, 660, 662, 663 situated Inapur village of Cherial Mandal, Warangal District are dry and wet lands and they are situated near to the National Highway and Komuravelli temple and they are potential, though the existing market value is more than 10,00,000/­ per acre, respondent without considering the same erroneously fixed the above market value which is unfair and needs to be modified. On the other hand learned Government Pleader argued that after verifying the sale transactions took place in the said village and after conducting fair enquiry, fixed the compensation and all the claimants received the compensation, therefore the 

Award passed is Consent­Award, hence claimants are not entitled for the relief sought.

3/11V ADJ, JN

LAOP No. 976/2015

9)PW1 in his Examination­in­chief, almost reiterated the averments of the Claim Statement and further during cross examination he deposed that the lands covered under Ex.A1 to A6 are not concerned with the lands acquired and they are not near to the said lands. The land was acquired under acres measurements but not as per square yards. The land covered under Ex.A5 was carved into plots and said land is ½ KM away from the acquired lands. He has not filed any village map to show that lands covered under Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are near to the land acquired. Nearly 32 persons lost their lands but claimants who are his relatives alone are claiming for enhancement of the compensation.

10)PW2 in his Examination­in­chief, deposed that he is working as Sub­

Registrar, Cheriyal for the past 8 years to his examination and he issued 

Ex.A7 to Ex.A10.

11)The DW1 deposed that, during enquiry, Officer verified sale deeds and fixed the reasonable market value. During the cross examination she deposed that basing on the sale deed of Sl.No. 157 mentioned in the award market value was fixed and the land covered in the said sale deed is similar in nature as to soil and fertility with the lands acquired. Compensation was paid on 31­01­2014 and on the same day possession was received from the claimants. In Ex.B3 Award sale transactions covered under Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were mentioned, but not considered. 

12)In the case on hand it is admitted fact that the respondent acquired total an extent of Ac. 22­32.1/2 gts., of patta land situated at Inapur village of Cheriyal Mandal, for Width statements and the drawings of surpls course of Inapur Pedda Cheruvu Tank. On 31­01­2014 an Award No. 37/2013­14 was passed and fixed the compensation @ 1,60,000/­ per acre for dry land and Rs. 1,70,000/­ per acre for wet land. Some of the owners of whose lands were acquired, received the compensation and claimants disputed the above fixation. Further more it is an admitted fact that there is no dispute with regards to the ownership of the claimants.

13)It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the Award passed in Ex.B3 is a consent award, therefore the present relief is not maintainable. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the Claimants 4/11V ADJ, JN

LAOP No. 976/2015 contended that claimants received the compensation under protest, therefore the respondent made the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition 

Act.

14)The learned counsel for petitioners/claimants further relied on the 

judgements held in the following cases, in support of his contentions.

Rai Pramathanath Mullick Bahadur

Vs 

The Secretary of State for India reported in 1930(32) BOM LR 522.

Wherein the Honourable Bombay High court held at para 7 that, no doubt the jurisdiction of the Courts under this L.A. Act is a special one and is strictly limited by the terms of these sections. It only arises when a specific objection has been taken to the Collector's Award.

15)Claimants also placed reliance on the judgements held in 

(a) Shree Madansingh saheb of Kutch 

Vs

State of Gujarath reported in A1963 GUJ 175

(b)State of Uttar Pradesh 

Vs 

Sri Abdul Kalam reported in AIR 1963 All 556.

(c) Land Acquisition Collector

Vs 

Janaki Dass reported in A1967 HP 26.

Whereas in the above judgements the Honourable Courts dealt in respect of limitation to refer the matter by L.A.O. to Civil Courts.

Whereas in the case on hand there is no point to be answered by this court on the point of limitation as there is no plea on the said aspect. Hence said judgements are not helpful to the present case.

16)On perusal of the record, in Ex.B1 under which present reference was made to this Court by Special Deputy Collector on 21­08­2015, at page No. 2 categorically mentioned that the land losers received the compensation under protest and requested the officer to refer the matter to competent Civil Court 5/11V ADJ, JN

LAOP No. 976/2015 under section 18 of the Land acquisition Act. The above observation clearly shows that the claimants received the compensation under protest and the present reference made by the respondent under section 18 of The land acquisition Act itself is sufficient to conclude that the Award passed under 

Ex.B3 is not a consent Award. Therefore the contention of the learned 

Government Pleader is not tenable.

17)Now this Court has to see that value fixed by the land acquisition officer is proper and just and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 can be a basis for modification of the market value fixed by the L.A.O.

18)On perusal of the Ex.B3, L.A.O. considered 356 sale transactions took place in Inapur village from 06­08­2010 to 05­08­2013 which took just 3 years prior to the publication of the draft notification on 05­08­2013. This 

Court also perused the said sale transactions as mentioned in Ex.B3/Award and all the said transactions are pertains to the lands in survey Nos. 12, 20, 25, 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 66, 83, 105, 106, 107, 108, 141, 147, 148, 156, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 220, 224, 228,229, 230, 231, 237, 239, 241, 251, 258, 259, 260, 270, 271, 281, 297, 299, 300, 301, ,303, 304, 305, 307, 308, 332, 336, 337, 343, 346, 353, 355, 357, 399, 407, 414, 415, 417, 425, 427, 441, 442, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 461, 477, 520, 526, 533, 534, 535, 538, 539, 541, 542,543, 544, 548, 614,615, 616,657, 664, 665, 700, 739, 744, 752, 757, 758, 759, 764, 769, 770, 771, 778, 793, 808, 809, 846, 849, 850, 851, 871, 874, 878, 879, 880, 882, 884, 885, 850, 910, 913, 964, 914, 974, 977, 1015, 1019, 1061, 1084, 1085, 1088, 1092 and 8876.

19)The L.A.O. In his Award considered all sale transactions in respect of lands in above survey numbers, which took place in the years 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. He further mentioned that some of above sale transactions took place for multiple survey numbers' lands and and some of the sale transactions are related to house plots and transaction in respect of land in 880 was for lower rate, therefore he has not considered them and discarded for arriving the market value. He relied on the transaction took place in respect of land in survey No. 880/A under vide document No. 487/2012, on 11­02­2012 and fixed the above market value, as it was for an agricultural land and having highest value.

6/11V ADJ, JN

LAOP No. 976/2015

20)Counsel for Petitioners/ Claimants argued that as per Sec.23 of LA Act, to arrive market value of the lands acquired, the market value existing at the time of publication of notification under Sec.4(1) of the LA Act must be considered, whereas LAO considered the sale transaction took place in the year 2012, which is one and half of years prior to notification issued under 

Sec.4(1) of LA Act and relied on “the judgement of High Court of 

Telangana held in L.A.O. Vijayawada Vs Hindustan Commercial and 

Transport company Private Limited in appeal No. 496/83 hele on 

18­02­1992”. The Honourable court in the above judgement held that the 

crucial date for considering the market value that has been fixed by

taking into account the comparable transactions is the date of section

4(1) notification and if the transactions are prior to said notification

the highest value depicted in the said sale deed must be taken. In the case on hand it is an admitted fact that notification under Section 4(1) of LA 

Act was issued on 25.07.2013 and sale transaction took place on 11.02.2012 was considered to fix the market value. 

21)It is settled law that to fix the market value, one should consider, the following factors, 

a) existing geographical factors and similar advantages

b) proximity to National high ways or State high ways.

c) market value of other lands situated in same locality or village or adjacent or near to the land acquired.

d) if exact material is not available proximity of sales or proximity from the situation angle must be considered.

22)In the instant case claimants have not filed any sale deeds of year 2013 took place in respect of an agricultural lands in the said village and more particularly of lands near to the lands acquired. Claimants only filed Ex.A1 to 

Ex.A6 whereas said sale transactions took place in respect of house plots. 

Even LAO also not referred any sale transactions took place in the year 2013 in respect of an agricultural lands in the said village. Infact it is for the claimants to prove the existing market value in the year 2013 in respect of an agricultural lands. Where as claimants failed to discharge their burden. 

23)It is the contention of the counsel for petitioners that the existing market value at that time per acre was more than 10 lakhs, even the sale 7/11V ADJ, JN

LAOP No. 976/2015 transaction pertains to Sy.Nos. 271, 297, 300, 871,913 and 914 referred by 

LAO in the Award also shows the more value, but intentionally Officer has not considered the same and the sale transaction took place for the lower rate was considered for fixation of the market value. In support of their contention they relied on Ex.A1 to Ex.A10. On perusal of the Ex.A1 to 

Ex.A6, under the said documents lands in survey number 871, 300, 301, 297 as well as the Sy.Nos. 271,297, 300, 871, 913 and 914 were sold in square yards for housing plots. Admittedly the land acquired under Ex.B3 which are forming part of survey Nos. 619, 620, 621, 622, 628, 630, 633, 659, 660, 662 and, 663 are an agricultural lands. LAO in Ex.B3 clearly mentioned that sale transactions pertains to Sy.Nos. 271, 297, 300, 913 and 914 were not considered, because said transactions were in per Sq.yards, whereas the land acquired was per acre. 

24)Admittedly in the instance case both the parties have not filed village map showing the location of the lands in survey numbers covered under 

Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and lands acquired by the respondent. At present there is no material on record to ascertain the distance between the lands covered under 

Ex.A1 to A6 and lands acquired. Furthermore the admission made by the 

PW1 during cross examination gives an inference that the lands covered under Ex.A1 to A6 are not located near to the lands acquired and there is an half kilometer distance. And further the lands covered under Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were sold after carving them into house plots, whereas the lands acquired are agricultural lands. Lands suitable for house plots can not be equated with the lands suitable for an agricultural purposes. Generally house sites carry more market value when compared with an agricultural lands. It is not the case of the petitions/ claimants that lands acquired are near to said house plots and these lands also suitable for housing purpose. When the land covered under Ex.A1 to A6 were sold as per Sq.yard and present lands are acquired per acre and both are not adjacent to each other and there is no nexus between them, therefore it is not proper to consider Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 to fix the market value and must be discarded.

25)The counsel for petitioners further contended that as per the oral admission of the PW2 who is an authority and as per Ex.A7 to Ex.A10 the existing market value in the Inapur village in the year 2013 is Rs. 

14,52,000/­ per acre. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader 8/11V ADJ, JN

LAOP No. 976/2015 vehemently submitted that Ex.A7 to Ex.A10 can not be considered for fixation of the market value since the Ex.A7 to Ex.A10 lands are not near to the lands acquired and they are no way related to the lands acquired. 

26)The learned counsel for petitioners/claimants argued that respondent has not adduced any evidence to rebut the Ex.A7 to Ex.A10, hence Ex.A7 to 

Ex.A10 must be considered and further relied on the judgement held in

Mandal Revenue Officer, Siricialla 

Vs 

J. Praveen Rao and others held on 21­01­2010 in L.A. First Appeal No. 495/1991.

Wherein the Honourable our High court held that L.A.O. Did not even make an attempt to rebut the evidence produced by the claimants, hence in the absence of such rebuttal evidence, the evidence produced by the claimants can not be said to be unacceptable. 

In this case on hand, respondent also not adduced any rebuttal evidence to Ex.A7 to Ex.A10, however Government Pleader has objected to rely on them to fix market value, on the ground that there is no nexus between Ex.A7 to Ex.A10 and the lands acquired. Now the point to be considered is whether this court can rely on Ex.A7 to Ex.A10 to arrive market value of the lands acquired or not. 

27)On perusal of the Ex.A7 to Ex.A10 they are issued by PW2 Sub­

Registrar, Cheriyal and same are pertains to lands in survey No. 1, 2, 8, 256, 257, 358, 410, 855, 857, 862, 863, 864, 865, 867, 868, 869, 871, 1086, 1089, 1090, 1091, 1092 and 1093 of Inapur village. As observed above there is no village map to ascertain the location of the above survey number lands and co relate with the lands acquired. When claimants are in position to obtain the market value certificates to above survey number lands, what prevented them to get the market value certificate from same authority for survey numbers which were acquired or at least to adjacent survey number lands. 

No explanation offered with cogent reasons. Without there being any material to ascertain the distance between the above survey number lands and lands acquired by the respondent and nexus between them it is not proper to rely on them to fix the market value. 

9/11V ADJ, JN

LAOP No. 976/2015

28)Furthermore in the same village all the lands may not be similar in nature, equal in value. The market value of the lands depends on the several factors. Claimants have not placed any material in what way the lands mentioned in Ex.A7 to A10 are similar to the lands acquired and not explained what are the similar or common feature of said lands. Except common feature that both lands are situated in same village there is no other similarities to the lands that are covered under Ex.A7 to Ex.A10 and lands acquired. This court is unable to rely as Ex.A7 to Ex.A10 to consider the market value of the lands acquired, merely as similarity that both the lands are farming part of same village, because that all the lands in the same village may not carry same market value.

29)Admittedly in the case on hand lands acquired are situated in survey 

Nos. 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 628, 629, 630, 633, 659, 660, 661, 662, 663 and 600. The sale transactions in Sl.No. 107 to 109 considered by the land acquisition officer in the Award are pertains to lands in survey No. 657, 664, 665, which appears to be adjacent to the lands acquired. The said transactions took place on 18­05­2011 and same are falling within 3 preceding years of the notification dated: 05­08­2013. As per said sale transaction the market value was 50,000/­ and 60,000/ in the year 2011. 

Generally L.A.O, has to consider the said value because the said lands are nearer to the lands acquired and sale transactions are pertains to an agricultural lands, however respondent has not considered the same since they are depicting lowest value and considered the highest value of sale transaction took place in respect of an agricultural land, during said period in respect of land in Sy.No.880/A for fixation of value, which is triple in value mentioned in the said sale deed of year 2011. One can not expect increase of value of an agricultural land more­than three times within two years. 

30)At present there is no material on record to prove the existing market value of an agricultural lands in the said village in the year 2013, in view of above reasons this Court is of opinion that the value fixed by the respondent is sufficient and fair and compensation paid to claimants is a just compensation, therefore there is no need to interfere in the Award passed by respondent.

10/11V ADJ, JN

LAOP No. 976/2015

31)Accordingly point is answered.

In the result: the petition is dismissed and award No. 37/2013­14, 

dated: 31­01­2014 of Special Deputy Collector­cum­ Land Acquisition Officer, 

JCRGLIP, Jangaon is hereby confirmed. 

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 2nd day of August, 2021.

FAC V­ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JANGAON

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For respondent:

PW­1: Dandu VenugopalDW1­M. Malathi PW2: R. Raju, Sub­Registrar, Cherial.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.A­1: CC of the Regd. Sale Deed document No. 1724, dt: 28­03­2013. Ex.A­2: CC of the Regd. Sale Deed document No. 4873, dt: 10­12­2012. Ex.A­3: CC of the Regd. Sale Deed document No. 548, dt: 28­12­2012. Ex.A­4: CC of the Regd. Sale Deed document No. 2621, dt: 08­05­2013. Ex.A­5: CC of the Regd. Sale Deed document No. 2623, dt: 08­05­2013. Ex.A­6: CC of the Regd. Sale Deed document No. 2240, dt: 22­04­2013. EX.A7 to Ex.A10 are market value certificates issued by Sub­Registrar, Cherial. 

For Respondent:

Ex.B­1: Form of Reference to the court along with covering letter,

dt: 21­08­2015.

Ex.B­2: Form­8 Award, dated: 31­01­2014 Ex.B­3: Award Proceeding of L.A.O. And Spl. Dy. Collector, dt: 31­01­2014.

FAC V­ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, 

JANGAON

11/11V ADJ, JN

DOP NO.17/2020/V­ADJ, Jangaon.

IN THE COURT OF V-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (II-FTC), WARANGAL

AT JANGAON

Wednesday, the 28th day of April, 2021

Present: Smt Y. Padma, IV Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Warangal FAC V-Addl. Sessions Judge(II-FTC), Jangaon

DOP NO.17 of 2020

Between:

1. Aduri @ Allam Sravya, W/o.Aduri Srikanth Reddy, Aged about 23 years, Occu: House hold, C/o.D/o.Allam Lourdu Reddy, R/o.Narmetta village, Narmettal Mandal, Jangaon Dist.

2. Aduri Srikanth Reddy, S/o.Late Arogya Reddy, Aged about 30 lyears, Occu: Business, R/o.H.No.1-1-2/1, Mohan Nagar, Srinivas Nagar Colony, Kothapeta, R.R.District. … Petitioners.

AND

- Nil -

... Respondent.

This Petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri

A.Parusha Ramulu, Advocate for the Petitioners and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following common :

:: O R D E R ::

This is a Petition filed under Section 28 (1) of Special Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage of the petitioners performed on 18-02-2019 at Maria Rosa

Mystica Church, Behind Kamineni Hospital, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

2.It is the case of Petitioners that, they are wife and husband and their marriage was performed on 18-02-2019 at Maria Rosa Mystica Church, Behind Kamineni

Hospital, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad as per customs prevailing in Christian community since both of them belongs to Christian community. After marriage Petitioner No.1 joined with Petitioner No.2 at his Residence and they lived happily for some period.

Thereafter, differences crop-up between them which are irreparable. On 25-02-2019 1 of 3

DOP NO.17/2020/V­ADJ, Jangaon.

Petitioner No.1 left the company of Petitioner No.2 and residing with her parents.

Many efforts were made by the elders on both sides for their re-union but they went in vain. Finally, they came to conclusion that their relationship is broken irreparably and decided to dissolve their marriage and lead happy life. Already entered into memorandum of understanding and exchanged the articles and complied the terms and conditions of the said memorandum of understanding and prayed to dissolve their marriage performed on 18-02-2019. Thus the petition.

3.This Court also conducted mediation and same is failed.

4.To prove their case Petitioners themselves examined as PW1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3.

5.Heard.

6.Now the point for consideration is, “Whether the petitioners are entitled for dissolution of marriage performed on 18-02-2019, as prayed for ?”

7.In order to prove the case of the Petitioners they themselves got examined as

PW1 and 2 and in their Examination in Chief, they have re-iterated the averments of the petition. It is admitted fact, that Petitioners No.1 and 2 are wife and husband and their marriage was performed on 18-02-2019 as per the customs prevailed in Christian community and Exs.A1 to A3 and un-disputed oral testimony of PW1 and 2 corroborating the same and establishing the case of the Petitioners.

8.It is the contention of Petitioners that, disputes arose between them and their marriage is broken irreparably and there is no possibility for them to stay together.

Both Petitioners are younger and there are no issues to them. Since, both Petitioners are decided to live peacefully by dissolving their marriage, same can be considered.

Hence, Petitioners are entitled for the relief as prayed for.

9.Point is answered accordingly.

2 of 3

DOP NO.17/2020/V­ADJ, Jangaon.

10.In the result, the petition is allowed by dissolving the marriage of the petitioners dated 18-02-2019 at Maria Rosa Mystica Church, Behind Kamineni Hospital,

L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. by granting decree of divorce. No costs.

(Typed to my Dictation to the Stenographer Gr.III, after transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of April, 2021)

Sd/-

FAC V-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW.1 Aduri @ Allam Shravya-NONE- PW.2 Aduri Srikanth Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

Ex.A1 Original Wedding Card-NIL- Ex.A2 Original Marriage Certificate Ex.A3 Digital Photographs (02 Nos.)

Sd/-

FAC V-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.

3 of 3

TSJN000001402019

IN THE COURT OF V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE JANGAON

Presided Over by Smt. Y. Padma OS/500261/2019 1.Katariya Prem Raj JainAge: 75 Address: R/o H.No. 7-2-993, Sajjanlal Street, Secunderabad. 2.Sampath Raj Jain Age: 75 R/O Plot No. 47 Amarajothi Colony Boinpally Secunderabad. 3.Manakchand Age 67 R/o H.No. 8-1-437 Shivaji Nagar Secunderabad. 4.Katariya Mahender Jain Age: 57 R/o H.No. 10-3-135/2 Teachers Colony East Maredpally Secunderabad. 5.Rajender Kumar Jain Age: 51 R/o Plot No. 18 S.V.L. Towers Flate No. 201 L.I.C Colony West Maredpally Secunderabad. 6.Suresh M. Singhvi Age: 56 R/o Krupa Apartment Flat No.A1 Sithapathi Colony west Maredpally Secunderabad. 7.Sajjan Bai, Age: 58, R/o H.No. 3-9-68/70, Samrat Colony West Maredpally, Secunderabad. 8.Anil Kumar Pipara, Age: 54, R/o H.No. 8-1-196, Shivaji Nagar Secunderabad. 9.Shrinek Kumar Jain Age: 37 R/o H.No. 10-3-32/26 Plot NO. 26 East Maredpally Secuncderabad 10.Lingaiah Shivashetty Age: 50 R/o Plot No. 45 Padmavathi Nagar FCI Colony Vanasthalipuram Hayathnagar Ranga Reddy District

VERSUS

1.M/s Aishwarya Infra Developers and BuildersAddress: M/S Aidhwarya Infra Develpers and Builders. Regd.NO. 3943/2018, Officer at 11-53 Om vihar Colony, Mediapaloly Village Ghatkesar Mandal Medchal Malkajgiri District. 2.Rakesh Shivashetty R/o NO. 45 Padmavathi Nagar FCI Colony Vanasthalipuram Hayathnagar Ranga Reddy District. 3.Lingaiah Shivashetty R/o Plot No. 45 Padmavathi Nagar FCI Colony Vanasthalipuram Hyathanaga Ranga Reddy District ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : N Ram Mohan Reddy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

(Delivered on 02-07-2021)

IA No. 69/2021 is filed and allowed and suit is advanced to this date. Plaintiffs No.1 to 9

are virtually present before this Court along with their counsel. Terms and conditions filed and same are read over to plaintiffs No.1 to 9 in Hindi and they have admitted them as true and correct and consented for the same. Plaintiffs No.1 to 9 further admitted that the signatures appearing on the compromise terms are signed by them and belong to them. Defendants No.1 to 3 endorsed on the terms compromise that they have no objection for recording the compromise. Xerox copies of Adhar Cards are filed along with self-attestation of the respective parties. Their identity is verified through said xerox copies of Adhar Cards. All the parties informed to this Court that they have received the money. Recording the terms and conditions and as the entire amount is received by plaintiffs 1 to 9, this suit is dismissed as not pressed in terms of the compromise.

Sd/-

V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON

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

TSJN000001392019

IN THE COURT OF V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JANGAON

Presided Over by Smt. Y. Padma

OS/500260/2019

1.Katariya Prem Raj JainAge: 75 Address: R/o H.No. 7-2-993, Sajjanlal Street, Secunderabad. 2.Sampath Raj Jain Age: 75 R/O Plot No. 47 Amarajothi Colony Boinpally Secunderabad. 3.Manakchand Age 67 R/o H.No. 8-1-437 Shivaji Nagar Secunderabad. 4.Katariya Mahender Jain Age: 57 R/o H.No. 10-3-135/2 Teachers Colony East Maredpally Secunderabad. 5.Rajender Kumar Jain Age: 51 R/o Plot No. 18 S.V.L. Towers Flate No. 201 L.I.C Colony West Maredpally Secunderabad. 6.Suresh M. Singhvi Age: 56 R/o Krupa Apartment Flat No.A1 Sithapathi Colony west Maredpally Secunderabad. 7.Sumith Kumar Age: 38, R/o H.No. 3-9-68/70 Samrat ColonyWest Maredpally Secunderabad. 8.Anil Kumar Pipara, Age: 54, R/o H.No. 8-1-196, Shivaji Nagar Secunderabad. 9.Shrinek Kumar Jain Age: 37 R/o H.No. 10-3-32/26 Plot NO. 26 East Maredpally Secuncderabad

VERSUS

1.M/s Aishwarya Infra Developers and BuildersAddress: M/S Aidhwarya Infra Develpers and Builders. Regd.NO. 3943/2018, Officer at 11-53 Om vihar Colony, Mediapaloly Village Ghatkesar Mandal Medchal Malkajgiri District. 2.Rakesh Shivashetty R/o NO. 45 Padmavathi Nagar FCI Colony Vanasthalipuram Hayathnagar Ranga Reddy District. 3.Lingaiah Shivashetty R/o Plot No. 45 Padmavathi Nagar FCI Colony Vanasthalipuram Hyathanaga Ranga Reddy District ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : N Ram Mohan Reddy

ORDER

(Delivered on 02-07-2021 )

IA No. 67/2021 is filed and allowed and suit is advanced to this date. Plaintiffs No.1 to 9

are virtually present before this Court along with their counsel. Terms and conditions filed and same are read over to plaintiffs No.1 to 9 in Hindi and they have admitted them as true and correct and consented for the same. Plaintiffs No.1 to 9 further admitted that the signatures appearing on the compromise terms are signed by them and belong to them. Defendants No.1 to 3 endorsed on the terms compromise that they have no objection for recording the compromise. Xerox copies of Adhar Cards are filed along with self-attestation of the respective parties. Their identity is verified through said xerox copies of Adhar Cards. All the parties informed to this Court that they have received the money. Recording the terms and conditions and as the entire amount is received by plaintiffs 1 to 9, this suit is dismissed as not pressed in terms of the compromise.

Sd/-

for V Addl. District and sessions Judge Jangaon

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

TSJN000000202021

IN THE COURT OF V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON

Presided Over by Smt. Y. Padma

EP/500136/2021

1.Bakka LaxmiAge: 60, Address: Thirumalagiri Village, Palakurthy Mandal Jangaon District. 2.Bakka Ashok, Age: 33, Thirumalagiri Village, Palakurthy Mandal Jangaon District. 3.Bakka Ramesh, Age: 30, Thirumalagiri Village, Palakurthy Mandal Jangaon District VERSUS 1.Polasa Ramesh, Age: 31, Address: R/o Palakurthy Village and Mandal, Jangaon District. 2:The Bajij Allianz General Insurance Co. The Bajij Allianz General Insurance Co. Office at H.No. 3-6-111/8, Street No. 18, Far East Plaza Second Floor opp Tata Show Room Liberty Road Himayat Nagar Hyderabad. 3.The Bajij Allianz General Insurance Co. The Bajij Allianz General Insurance Co. Office at H.No. 1-7-690 First Floor Layola Arcade Subedari Hanamkonda Warangal. 4.Akkula Srinivas, Age: 47 R/o Palakurthy Village and Mandal, Jangaon District ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : V Prasad Rao

ORDER

(Delivered on 17-06-2021 )

Dhrs 1 to 3 are personally present. And they are identified by their counsel. Counsel for Jd No. 2 and 3 are present. Terms of compromise filed and same are read over to dhr No. 1 to 3 in telugu in open court and they admitted as true and correct and contended for it. Jd No. 2 and 3 deposited cheque bearing No. 819190 for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) towards full and final settlement. Recording the same EP is terminated.

Sd/-

for V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON

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