##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

L.A.A.S No.103 of 2024

Date: 29.01.2026

Between:

Bommena Anantha Rao. …Appellant

And

Special Deputy Collector,

Land Acquisition. …Respondent

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman)

Heard Mrs.G.Jhansi, learned counsel for the appellant,

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals and Sri

P.Ramachandran, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. With the consent of the all the aforesaid counsels, this

appeal is heard and decided finally.

3. This appeal is preferred under Section 74 of the Right to

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity, ‘the

##PAGE2##

2

Act of 2013’), challenging the Award dated 28.10.2024 in

L.A.O.P No.24 of 2018 passed by the Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority for the State of

Telangana at Hyderabad.

4. Notice sent to 6^th respondent is returned un-served with

an endorsement that parties are not available in the village and

same was returned. Sending notice to 6^th respondent to the

address available is sufficient in terms of Section 27 of the

General Clauses Act.

5. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on

behalf of 7^th respondent.

6. Perusal of the record would reveal that the subject

property was acquired for the purpose of construction of Mid

Manair Reservoir and vacant possession was taken on

18.11.2010. The Land Acquisition Officer passed award on

23.02.2016 in file No.F/224/2012.

##PAGE3##

3

7. Reference has been made under Section 64 r/w 76 of the

Act of 2013 by the 1^st respondent vide L.A.O.P.No.24 of 2018.

Vide impugned Award, learned Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, disposed of the

said reference holding that three sons, two daughters and wife

of Bommena Srinivasa Rao (another son of Bommena

Bhoomaiah) viz.,(1) Bommena Anantha Rao (2) Bommena

Ananda Rao (3) Bommena Kondal Rao (4) P.Anantha Laxmi

and (5) G.Laxmi and (6) Bommena Rajitha are entitled to 1/6^th

share in the compensation amount of Rs.10,72,786/- along

with accrued interest in equal proportions. Challenging the

said Award, present appeal is preferred.

8. Perusal of the record would reveal that the Reference

Court impleaded respondent Nos.3 to 7 suo moto holding that

they are also entitled for compensation. Respondent Nos.3, 4

and 5 filed I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2025 in the present appeal, with a

request to delete their names in the said reference contending

that Reference Court suo moto made them as parties. They are

##PAGE4##

4

not claiming any right and interest over the subject property

Reference Court ought to have decided the disputes between

the claimant No.1 and claimant No.2 without impleading other

parties suo moto.

9. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant that the reference Court has no power to implead any

party including claimant suo moto. She placed reliance on the

principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram

Prakash Agarwal and another v. Gopi Krishan (dead

through LRs) and others, (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 296. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble

Apex Court held as follows:

“24. The said case is required to be examined from another

angle. Undoubtedly, the respondents did not make any

application either under Section 18 or Section 30 of the 1894

Act to the Land Acquisition Collector. The jurisdiction of the

Reference Court, vis-à-vis “persons interested” has been

explained by this court in Shyamali Das v. Illa Chowdhry

((2006) 12 SCC 300), holding that the Reference Court does

not have the jurisdiction to entertain any application of pro

interesse suo, or in the nature thereof. The Court held as

under: (SCC p.304. para 19)

“19. The Act is a complete code by itself. It provides for

remedies not only to those whose lands have been acquired

but also to those who claim the awarded amount or any

##PAGE5##

5

apportionment thereof. A Land Acquisition Judge derives its

jurisdictio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document