The Land Acquisition Officer - Cum - Revenue Divisional Officer v. Padigala Pedda Rajanna
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: T.MADHAVI DEVI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-10-17. The Land Acquisition Officer - Cum - Revenue Divisional Officer v. Padigala Pedda Rajanna. Read...
Judgment text
[ 321e ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:3159 OF 2025 Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order dated 1 110812025 passed in EP No. 7/20 1B in LAOP No. 615/1996 on the file of the lAdditional District Judge at Nizamabad. I I Between: I The Land Acquisition Officer - Cum - Revenue Divisronal Officer, Nizamabad. . ,. PETITIONER AND 1. Padigala Pedda Rajanna, S/o. Rajanna (died) per. Lrs. C. No. B and 9 2. Kammarpalli lstari, S/o. Gangaram, 49 years, Occ. Agriculture, 3. fosam Mallu Bai, Wio Bhoomanna (died) per L. R. No. 7 4. Enugu Pullaiah, S/o. Mallaiah (died) per Lr. No. 6 5. Chintapur Ramulu, S/o. Mallesh, Aged 61 years, Occ. Agriculture 6. Enugu Gangubai, W/o. Late. Enugu Pullaiah, Aged 71 years, Occ. Agriculture (Claimant No. 6 is brought on record as L. R. of claimant No.
4 as per orders in LA. No. 41 96/2003, dated 1010212004. 7. Smt. Pasham Yamuna, Wo. Mahipal, Occ. Agriculture, (Claimant No. 7 is brought on record as L. R. of Claimant No. 3 as per C. O. dt. 0210212009 in LAASMP. No 26109) B. Smt. Sathemma, Wo. Padigala Pedda Rajanna, Occ. Agriculture, 9. Padigala Ravindar, S/o. Padigala Pedda Rajanna, Occ. Agriculture (Claimant No. B and 9 are brought on record as L. R. of claimant No. '1 as per C. O. dt. t 25l02l211g in LAASMP No. 27l09). All are R/o. Anksapoo(V), Velpoo(M), N izam abad. ... RESPONDENTS , I lA NO: 1 OF 2025 . 1 Petition under Section 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay '1996 all further proceedings in E P No T of 20'18 in O. P. No.
615 of on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Nizamabad for warrant executed for lifting of property of LAO / JDR Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR ARBITRATION Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T. SRUJAN KUMAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOT]RABI,II SM'I". IUS'I'ICE T. MADHAVI DEVI - I CIVIL REVISION PIiTITION No. 3159 OF 2025 oRI)t_tt: I'his Civil Revision Pctition is lllcd challcnging the order dated 11. 08. 2015 in E. P. No. 7 oll0 l8 in L. A. O. P. No. 6l5 of 1996 passed by the I Additional District Judge at Nizamabad (for short, "the Trial Court"), whclcby the properrl. of the petitioner office was attached and also lbr ii fting of the property on payrnent of transport charges 2. This Couft, vrdg interirn order dated 04. 09. 2025, had stayed the execution ol'the older dated I 1. 08. 2025 in E. P. No. 07 of 2018 in L. A. O. P. No. (>15 ol'1996 on the file of the I Additional District . ludge at Nizarnabad. 3.
Learned Governnrent I)leade r fbr the petitioner has drawn ('our1 the attention of this to the calculation sheet fi led by the Land Acquisition Olllcer in E,. P. No. 7 of 2018, according to which the entire amount has been paid and there are no dues from the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel lor thc respondents has also drawn the attention ol this CoLrrt to the computation filed by the decree holders. contrntlins and that thev arc entitled to the amount accordingll 5. Hon cve r, upon corrparison of both the cottrputation shccts. it is noticed that therc appears to be a dispute with regard 1o the danrages calculated at the rate of 15% fiorn the date ol possession to the date of notiflcation and also with re{rard to the interest pavablc on the awarded arnounts 6. Leamed Government Pleader for the petitioner had further pointed out that payrlent of Rs. 3,86,975i- deposited on 21. 11. 2019. is also not finding place in cornputation sheet filed bv the respondents. 7.
Therefore, it appears that the Trial Court has r. rot appreciated the discrepancies between the calculation sheets filed by the decree holders and the Land Acquisition Officer. [n view of tl. re same. since it is pointed out that there are discrepancies in the calculations, this Courl is inclined to set aside the order dated / I 1. 08. 2025 in Ir. P. No. 7 of 2018 in I-. A-O. P. No. 6l5 of 1996 on the file of I Additional District Judge at Nizarnabad, and remand the I I case back to the Trial Court and the l-rial Court is directed to comparc both the computations and also consider thc evidence f-rled by both the parties in support of their calculations and thereafter, pass appropriate orders u,ithin a period ol'two (02) rnonths from the date ofreceipt of a copy ol th is order. 8. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is 'fhere disposed of. shall be no ordcr as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, il' any, shall also stand disrnissed. SDi.
L LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, l The IAdditional District Judge at Nizamabad. 2. One CC to SRl. GP FOR ARBITRATION Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. T. SRUJAN KUMAR REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies M ,fPK/ABK HIGH COURT DATED. 17l1012025 iiHE -. , i ) r1. I I ORDER J I CRP. No. 3159 of 2025 I I CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISPOSED OF C. g4i( t & t
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.