THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR v. MANGALI PEDDA SUBBANNA(DIED) AND 2 OTHERS
LAAS/188/2018 · 2025-09-10
Ninala Jayasurya, Tuhin Kumar Gedela
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 36010 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 36010 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010583372018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3549] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT Nos: 188, 189, 195, 196, 227, 244 and 261 of 2018 LAAS No.188 of 2018: Between:
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LA, GNSS, NANDYAL
...APPELLANT AND
1. MANGALI PEDDA SUBBANNADIED AND 2 OTHERS, KURNOOL
2. MANGALI VENKATESWARLU, SON OF LATE MANGALI PEDDA SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
3. MANGALI THIRUPATHAMMA, D/O.LATE M.PEDDA SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. ALL ARE R/O.SUNKESULA VILLAGE OWK. MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT (CLAIMANTS NOS.2 AND 3 ARE ADDED AS PER ORDERS IN IA.NO.88/2014 DT.18.3.2014)
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant:
1. GP FOR APPEALS (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
2. 2
The Court made the following Common Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
Aggrieved by a Common Order dated 21.11.2017 passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.1156, 1148, 1127, 1149, 1128, 1165 and 1126 of 2009 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, the State/appellant preferred the present batch of appeals. 2. Heard Sri S.Bala Mohan, learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and Sri S.Chandrasekhar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants. 3. For the purpose of excavation of Galeuru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi (for short “the GNSS”) Flood Flow Canal from KM 4.850 to 7.990 KM, a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on
15.02.2006. The subject land situated in Belum Singavaram village is part of the said acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer, vide Award No.3/2006- 2007, dated 25.07.2006, fixed the market value by classifying the lands into two categories (i) Rain-fed land and (ii) Dry land, irrigated with bore water and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively. Dissatisfied with the same and seeking market value at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre, the land owners/claimants invoked Section 18 of the Act. 4. The learned Reference Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre, as against Rs.5,00,000/- per acre claimed by the respondents/claimants. 5.
At the time of considering the matters, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants placed on record a copy of the order dated 03.07.2025 passed in L.A.A.S.No.40 of 2015 and batch and submits that, in respect of the very same acquisition and the same award, the State preferred appeals and a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the same and in fact, the cross- objections were allowed by enhancing the compensation to Rs.2,98,660/- per
3
acre. He fairly submits that the respondents/claimants have not preferred any cross-objections in the present batch of appeals. 6. The learned Government Pleader had not disputed the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Be that as it may. 7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants, this Court had an occasion to consider the orders passed by the Reference Court in respect of the acquisition of lands in Belum Singavaram village for the purpose of excavation of Galeuru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi Flood Flow Canal from KM 4.850 to 7.990 KM, and dismissed the appeals preferred by the State in respect of the lands which are subject matter of the Award No.3/2006-2007, dated 25.07.2006. 8. In view of the same and for the reasons alike, the present batch of appeals are liable to be dismissed and the same are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in these cases, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J
_______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J Date : 11.09.2025 BMS