Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
[ 3208 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA APPEAL SUIT Nos:8 & 31 of2008 Appea I Suit No.8 of 2008 Between: 1 . The Special Deputy Collector/Land Acquisiton Otficer, S.L'B C', Gandhamvari Gudem, Nalgonda. 2. The Executive Engineer, R & B, Miryalaguda Division, Miryalguda' 3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, I & CAD, Hyderabad. 338?',l1li"J AND 1 . Vangala Ram Reddy, S/o. Matta Reddy, Age 52 years' 2. Vangala Madhava Reddy, S/o. Somi Reddy, Age 47 years' 3. Vangala Bal Reddy, S/o. Somi Reddy' Age 50 years. (All are Ryo Chillapally Village of Nereducherla Mandal of Nalgonda District ) ...Respondents/ Plaintiffs ASMP. NO: 2120 OF 2016 Appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C, against the Judgment and decree dated 21-OS-2O01 passed in o.s No.2 of 2000 on the file of the court of the senior civil Judge, Miryalaguda. Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased stay of i1 fr.tt "|. proceedings'in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.2 of 2dOO dated-Zt -08-2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda (including execution proceedings in EP No.133 of 2012 on the file of senior civil iuOge, tr,tiryataguda) pending disposal of the above appeal'
r' Appeal Suit No.31 of 2008 Appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and decree dated. 21-O8-2OO1 passed in O.S No.1 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda. Between: '1. The Special Deputy Collector/Land Acquisiton Officer, S.L.B.C., Gandhamvari Gudem, Nalgonda. 2. The Executive Engineer, R & B, Miryalaguda Division, Miryalguda. 3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, I & CAD, Hyderabad. ...Appellants/ Defendants AND 1. 2. J. 4. 6. 7. Vangala Ranga Reddy, S/o. Matta Reddy, aged 47 yearc. Vangala Somi Reddy, (Died) per LR's Respondents 18 to 20 Gunreddy Bhagawanth Reddy, S/o. Saidi Reddy, age 40 years. Vangala Somi Reddy, S/o. Veera Reddy, age 60 years. Vangala Rami Reddy, (Died) per LR R12. Kedeti Kondaiah, (Died) per LR's RR 13 to 1 5. Bhimaraju Rangamma, W/o. Saidulu, age 52 years. (R7 Dismissed for default Court Order daled 25-4-2O16.) Vangala Somi Reddy, died his L.R. Madhava Reddy, S/o. Somireddy 9. Tippana Raji Reddy, S/o. Matta Reddy, age 60 years, (Died) per LR's RR 16 & 17. 10. Tippana Pitchi Reddy, died his L.R.Tippana Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Pitchi Reddy, age 40 years. 11. Tippana Matta Reddy, S/o. Nagi Reddy, age 65 years. (All are R/o. Chillapalli (V) of Nereducherla mandal of Nalgonda District.) ...Respondents/Plaintiffs l2.Yangala Narayanamma, Wo Late Vangala Rami Reddy, age 65 years, R/o Chillapalli (V), Nereducherla Mandal, Nalgonda District 13. K. Durgamma, Wo Late K. Kondaiah, age 60 years, 14. K. Vishwanadham, S/o Late K. Kondaiah, age 48 years, 15. K. Dayaker, S/o Late K. Kondaiah, age 40 years, 16. Tippana Venkat Reddy, S/o Late Tippana Raji Reddy, age 50 years, 8
;. 17.T.Ch. Laxmamma, Wo Bhaskar Reddy, daughter in law late Tippana Raji Reddy, age 40 years, lS.Vangala Bal Reddy, S/o Late Vangala Somi Reddy, age 60 years, lg.Vangala Madhava Reddy, S/o Late Vangala Somi Reddy, age 50 years, 20.Vangala Joji Reddy, Sio Late Vangala Somi Reddy, age 40 years, (RR12 to 20 are brought on record as LR's of the deceased Respondents 5, b, g, Z "t per Court Order datedl4-7-11 in ASMPs 80,84,82 & 78 of 2008 respectively.) Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to lrant stay of all furthei proceedings in pursuance of the Judgment and decree iasseo in os No. 1 of 2000, dated: 21_08-2001 on the fite of senior civit Judge, tr,tiryatgraa including execution proceedings in EP No. 40 ol 2002 on the file of SenioiCivit Judge, Miryalguda Pending disposal of the above appeal' MP. N t 423OF 11 Counsel for the APPellants in both the Appeal : GOVERNMENT PLEADER FORAPPEALS Counsel for the ResPondents in both the Appeals : SRI S. LAKSHMA REDDY The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT
q THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA APPEAL SUIT Nos.8 & 31 of2OO8 COMMON JUDGMENT: These Appeal Suits arc hled against the Common Judgment and Decree dated 27.08.2O01 in O.S.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2O00 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda. 2. The differential amount of compensations was claimed by the re spondcn ts / plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.1 & 2 of 20O0 against the appellants/ defendants to an extent of Rs.4,87,O37.76 ps and Rs.1,89,813.80 ps respectively with interest @ 12% per annum from the date oI suit till the date of realization and for costs. The trial Courl after considering the arguments and evidence on both sides decreed the suits. Aggrieved by the said common Juclgment, delendants therein preferred the present appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants mainly contended that the trial Court was not exercising jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to award the benefits due to the respondents/ plaintiffs. Thc suits filed for recovery of differential compensation amount under the Au,ard proceedings No.B/757 /89, dared 23.06.1994, are not mair-rtainable under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act and
,, -a rt 2 it has no jurisdiction to grant the benefits. The trial Court failed to consider the scope of the Order dated 29 .1O.1997 in W.P.No.18364 of 1997. The operative portion of the said writ petition reads as follows: "a) The claim of the petitioners for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act is herebg rejected. b) Tle respondent authorities shall pdA compensation to tLe petitioners as determined bg the Land Acquisition OJficer, under Section a(1) of the L.A.Act, 1894, as on 19.07.1992. Time for pagment of the dijference in compensation is granted bg six months from the date hereof " As per the Order of the writ petition, respondents/ plaintiffs are entitled only to the differential compensation by taking into consideration of the market value hxed as on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act i.e., 19.O7.1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'L.A.ActJ. As per the said Order, Land Acquisition Ofhcer was required to pay the differential compensation by taking into account of the compensation as determined by him under the L.A.Act, 7894 i.e., Rs.46,000 per acre minus Rs.400/- per acre. The respondents/ plaintiffs were paid differential compensation with solatium and interest @ 4%o, 9o/o and 157o. There was no direction in the writ petition to pay solatium, interest or interest on solatium. With the payment of difference in compensation, the order in the writ petition stood complied with.
-v ) Respondents/ plaintiffs received solatium and interest, it was addition to the amount to which they were entitled under the writ petition. Respondents/ plaintiffs are claiming inLerest @ 9%o and 15% and interest on solatium on the ground that Land Acquisition Officer calculated the compensation wrongly and it was beyond the scope of the writ petition. As the claim for reference under Section 18 was rejected, they cannot file suits claiming benefits that can be adjudicated under Section 18 of the L.A Act. Thc Court erred in holding that deduction of Income Tax at source is erroneous. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Common JudgmenI of the trial Court. 4. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire Judgment of the trial Court. 5. Appellants contended that as per Section 34 of the L.A Act, suit itself is not maintainable, but said plea was not raised in the written statement at the earliest point of time and they have not requested the Court to frame the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and even in the Judgment, jurisdiction issue was never decided as it was not raised by the appellants herein. They mainly contended that trial Court cannot decide the suit beyond the scope of the Order dated 29.10.1997 in 't ,/ I
4 W.P.No.18364 of 1997. ln the said writ petition, the reference under Section 18 was rejected and authorities are directed to determine the market value under Section a(1) of the L.A. Act, 1894 as on 19.07.1992 and to pay the amount within six months, but it was not complied, as such respondents/plaintiffs hled contempt petition No. 1221 of 1998 before the Honble High Court and the Government has issued an Order dated 22.1O.1998 to comply with the Order of the High Court. 6. The compensation as contemplated under the provisions of Nagarjuna Sagar Project Act (hereinafter referred to as 'N.S.P.ActJ at Rs.400/- together with solatium at 3O7o interest at 4oh, 9oh and 157o were paid and award was also passed on 29.1O.1997. The said point regarding the interest on solatium is not entitled is also raised before the trial Court, basing on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.No.11398 & 1i399 of 1995 dated 29.11.1995. Appellants herein mentioned in the Order of the High Court, regarding the issue of interest on solatium, both the suits in O.S.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2OO0 w€re clubbed as both the suits arose out of single award and defendalts in both the suits were one and the same and the evidence recorded in O.S.No.2 of 200O shall also be treated as evidence in O.S.No.1 of 2OO0.
EE )..' 5 7. The trial Court got examined P.W. 1 and marked Exs.Al to A17 on behalf of the plaintiffs. The Deputy Tahsiidar was examined as R.W.I and marked Exs.B I and 82 on behalf of the defendants. 8. R.W. 1 in his evidence stated that they have already complied the Orders of the High Court and paid compensation to the respon dents / plain tiffs, as such they are not entitled for interest on solatium and refund of income tax as prayed for in the plaint. He also filed a memo of calculations containing four shee ts for re ference which was marked under Ex.B 1 and Ex.82 was the attested true copy of the award. 9. The trial Court observed that initially the Land Acquisition Olhcer fixed the market value at Rs.400/ - per acre under the provisions of N.S.P Act and also fixed the market value at Rs.a6,000/- per acre under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. When he has chosen to pay compensation at Rs.4O0/- per acre, he has also paid statutory benehts like solatium aL 3oyo on the market value of Rs.400/- per acre with interest at 4oh, 9%o and 15%o on the market value at three different periods as mentioned in Ex.B2 award proceedings. When High Court directed the authorities in W.p.No. 1g364 of
6 1997 dated 29.10.1997, appellant No.1/defendant No.1 paid the market value at Rs.46,000/- per acre with 3oolo solatium and interest at4Vo,9o/o and 15% on the market value after deducting the income tax, but the respondents/plaintiffs mainly contended that after passing of the Amendment Act in 1982, they are entitled for interest at 99'o per annum for one year from the date of taking the possession on the enhanced compensation and thereafter at 157o per annum on the enhanced compensation as contemplated under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act and in the Award proceedings under Ex.B2 dated 23.06.1994, the Land Acquisition Officer clearly mentioned at page No.6 relating to interest column that they are entitled for interest at 9o/o per annum for one year and at 15 o/o per annum for the remaining period and calculated accordingly. When it was not implemented properly by the Land Acquisition Officer, they claimed for differential amount from the date of taking the possession. Under Ex.B2, the Land Acquisition Officer also awarded interest on the solatium as per the above stated rate and paid accordingly to the plaintiffs. 10. No doudt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in 7996 LACC 33O SC held that interest on solatium is not payable and the executing Court is not competent to go
7 behind the law laid don,n by the Supreme Court held to be prospective and not retrospective. In this case, the Award was passed under Ex.B2 dated 23.O6.1994 and the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in the year 1996, as such there cannot be retrospective effect on the principle of law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that interest is not payable on solatium. The Land Acquisition Officer under Ex.B2 awarded interest on solatium and accordingly re sponden ts / ptain tiffs have claimed the interest. Thc said point was clearly answered by the trial Court and held that re spondents / plaintiffs are entitled for interest on the solatium. [t was also observed by considering the said Judgment that the award passed under Ex.B2 was became Itnal as contemplated under Section 12(21 of the L.A Act. It was further held that Land Acquisition Olficer irregularly calculated the interest at 4% which was nol found place in the L.A Act, as such respondents/ plaintiffs are entitled lor interest @ 9o/o per annum for one year and for the rest of the period at 15olo per annum on the enhanced compensation i.e., for the difference amount. It was further held that Land Acquisition Officer after the direction of the High Court on 2g.1).lgg7, wrongly made calculation and deducted the income tax. Respondents herein stated that the calculation of income tax as found in Ex.B 1 is incorrect. The income of each year must have been taking into ! I ,-,/ I
8 consideration of the individual respondent/ plaintiff to assess the income tax but not for the total period, as the calculation of the income tax under Ex.B i is erroneous, respondents/ plaintiffs are entitled for return of same from the appellants/ defendants. It was also held by the trial Court that the amount claimed by the respondents/ plaintiffs under Annexures - I, ll and III were checked and found to be correct and the said suits were decided in favour of the respondents/ plaintiffs and thus finaliy it was observed that O.S.No.1 of 2000 was decreed for an amount of Rs.4,87,O37 .7 6ps with inlerest @ l2%o per annum from the date of suit till realization and O.S.No.2 of 20OO was decreed for an amount of Rs.1,89,813.80 ps with interest @ l2o/o per annum from the date of suit till realization with costs. This Court hnds no reason to interfere with the said Order. 1 I . In the result, both appeal suits are dismissed, conlirming the common Judgment and decree dated 21.O8.2001 in O.S.Nos. I & 2 of 2000 passed by the trial Court. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA 'T=ffi::;I: \ 1 . The Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda. (with records, if any) 2.TwoCCstoGPFoRAPPEALS,HighcourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad (OUT) 3. One CC to SRI S. LAKSHMA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] To, 4. Two CD CoPi V -zt{
HIGH COURT DATED:0411012023 1tlE STAI6 J 0 q N[t ?[2] o ^' a O5.i o,r.1C COMMON JUDGMENT+COMMON DECREE AS.Nos.8 & 31 of 2008 BOTH APPEAL SUITS ARE DlSMISSED t4 ))
[ 3208 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENl THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA APPEAL SUIT Nos: 8 of 2008 Between: 1. The Special Deputy Collector/Land Acquisiton Officer, S.L.B.C., Gandhamvari Gudem, Nalgonda. 2. The Executive Engineer, R & B, Miryalaguda Division, Miryalguda. 3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary' I & CAD' Hyderabad. ...Appellants/ Defendants Vangala Ram Reddy, S/o. Matta Reddy, Age 52 yeas. Vangala Madhava Reddy, S/o. Somi Reddy, Age 47 years. Vangala Bal Reddy, S/o. Somi Reddy, Age 50 years. All are R/o Chillapally Village of Nereducherla Mandal of Nalgonda District ...Respondents/ Plaintiffs Appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and decree dated. 21-08-2001 passed in O.s No.2 of 20oo on the file of the court of the senior civil Judge, Miryalaguda. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the order and Decree of the court below, the material papers in the original Petition and upon hearing the arguments of GP FOR APPEALS, for the Appellants and SRI S. LAKSHMA REDDY, Advocate for the Respondents. AND 1 2 3
This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1. That the appeal suit be and hereby is dismissed; and 2. That the Judgment and decree dated 2i-08-2001 in O.S.No.2 of 2000 passed by the Senior Civil Ju6gs, Miryalguda be and hereby is confirmed. Sd/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUIffEGTSTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, kam NJB //TRUE COPY// 1. The Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda 2. Two CD Copies
HIGH COURT DATED:0411012023 DECREE AS.Nos.8 of 2008 D!SMISSING THE APPEAL rt
[ 3208 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA APPEAL SUIT No: 31 of 2008 Between: 1 . The Special Deputy Collector/Land Acquisiton Officer, S.L.B.C., Gandhamvari Gudem, Nalgonda. 2. The Executive Engineer, R & B, Miryalaguda Division, Miryalguda. 3. The Government ofAndhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, I & CAD, Hyderabad. ...Appellants/ Defendants AND 1. 2. J. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11 Vangala Ranga Reddy, S/o. Matta Reddy, aged 47 yearc. Vangala Somi Reddy, (Died) per LR's Respondent Nos. 18 to 20 Gunreddy Bhagawanth Reddy, S/o. Saidi Reddy, age 40 years. Vangala Somi Reddy, S/o. Veera Reddy, age 60 years. Vangala Rami Reddy, (Died) per LR R12. Kedeti Kondaiah, (Died) per LR's RR 13 to 15. Bhimaraju Rangamma, Wo. Saidulu, age 52 years. R7 Dismissed for default Court Order daled 25-4'2016. Vangala Somi Reddy, died his L.R. Madhava Reddy, S/o. Somireddy. Tippana Raji Reddy, S/o. Matta Reddy, age 60 years, (Died) per LRs RR 16 & 17. Tippana Pitchi Reddy, died his L.R.Tippana Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Pitchi Reddy, age 40 years. Tippana Matta Reddy, S/o. Nagi Reddy, age 65 years. All are Rl/o. Chillapalli (V) of Nereducherla mandal of Nalgonda District. ...Respondents/Plaintiffs
l2.Vangala Narayanamma, W/o Late Vangala Rami Reddy, age 65 years, Ryo Chillapalli (V), Nereducherta Mandal, Naigonda District 13. K. Durgamma, W/o Late K. Kondaiah, age 60 years, 14. K. Vishwanadham, S/o Late K. Kondaiah, age 4g years, 15. K. Dayaker, S/o Late K. Kondaiah, age 40 years, '16 Tip_pana Venkat Reddy, S/o Late Tippana Raji Reddy, age 50 years, 17.T.Ch. Laxmamma, Wo Bhaskar Reddy, daughter in law laie Tippana Raji Reddy, age 40 years, lS.Vangala Bal Reddy, S/o Late Vangata Somi Reddy, age 60 years, 19. Vangala Madhava Reddy, S/o Late Vangala Somi Reddy, age S0 years, 20.Vangala Joji Reddy, S/o Late Vangata Somi Reddy, age40 years,' RRl2 to 20 are brought on record as LR,s of the deceased Respondents S, 6, 9, 2 as per Court Order datedl4-t -11 in ASMps gO, 84, 82 & 7S of 2006 respectively. Appeal under Section 96 of C.p.C., against the Judgment and decree dated. 21-08-2001 passed in o.S No.1 of 2000 on the file of the court of the senior civil Judge, Miryalaguda. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the order and Decree of the court below, the material papers in the original petition and upon hearing the arguments of Gp FoR APPEALS, for the Appe[ants and sRr S. LAKSHMA REDDY, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1. That the appeal suit be and hereby is dismissed; and 2. That the Judgment and decree dated 21-08-2001 in O.S.No.1 of 2000 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda be and hereby is confirmed. To, //TRUE COPY// 1. The Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda 2. Two CD Copies Sd/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUI]LREGTSTRAR sEc!?Rr oFFrcER kam 7
HIGH COURT DATED:0411012023 DECREE AS.No.31 of 2008 DISMISSING THE APPEAL 9 \ )p)>