Dismissed

Kumaraswamy Kolla and 5 others v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Telangana HC6 Feb 2023WP/23303/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings for a four-lane road, holding that the earlier challenge to the preliminary notification had become final and that the award, not having been challenged, made the petitions infructuous. The court noted the small extent of land involved and applied the principle that public interest outweighs private interes

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed. I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 were dismissed. Petitioners were granted liberty to seek reference under Section 64 of the Act for enhancement of compensation within four we

Kumaraswamy Kolla and 5 others Vs The State of Telangana… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

3256 I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD[ (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

l.A.No.1 and 2 of 2022

¶7

IN/AND

¶8

W.P.No.1 6342 of 2021

¶9

AND

¶10

Wr Nos mn 233 3a 2 20 1 3 ! I 34 37 97 41 1 am 3 4 20 2

¶11

Between:

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO: 163420F 2021

¶13

1 . Kodali Lakshmi Deeothi, Wo. .K.Murali Krishna, Aged 36 years. occ. Househotd, R/o^ptot r'io.s'e,rhiNb.5'06, i"i,iiZ'h?"io;"r"y, i"S fiii"r.rrUli: Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶14

Thummala :!?yalam, S/o Thummala Bulli Aniaiz e u s in esi, rid irdi^" r.rl,. r^.r,a,i ti ii' v i ii;t#'fi 5g tg?jnr?o o[??,f , ri"?:; Sherilingampally, Hyderabad.

¶15

Mantena Suresh Kumar Varma, S/o M.Rama Krisl "[:;?:1.8,,.",..,T]f l]l,1,p;r;iv;.ri'i;ru;;;i#i,Filtf"',iii,rfi,Hi

¶16

'H":il,S!iU8l;X,,#i:.#?fl Madinaguda, Hyderabac Bl?f^{,,,"??"fl,ffi} A*"igii,,g,"nffi E*otfi i; 5. Kodali Bata Gdnoadhrrg^ Fqq, S/o. Kodali Subbarao, Aged 4t years. occ. EHJTS;irflf^{rr-ar.ro.+ot,ui"ZoniEil"e"irr",r.ri_,ip"tnirr,ig;"iJ;";}

¶17

1. Manthena Rajya Lakshmi, Wo Lakshmioathi Rai Household, Ryb ftat tr Jeedimeta, .""uno.,."oiJd?ul'Hr#i"il"i{5'lll'h13'-St"?l^{to""#'i3"a'1"?3;}

¶18

1. Manthena Dhanalakshmi, Wo Manthena Satvanar occ. Househoia, ri<j'H ivcj..a-1 r d; N;i. iiriJ,J'd6itf,vRH$$3f,1 3,1,iff^*,

¶19

j"".

¶20

:|;i,:iila'x,T[:LT.!Ys:"ffi ,:'s;t,if, ,.Riil"ni"ir-6ii"i"z[,'"I t. Y.I*'.'fsru:Xft'#tBiig:5:aitg,;1* vears' occ' Business, Fvo MIc 10. Kasumpudi Krishanmraju, . 9/.o f. Kotam Raju, Aged 49 years, occ. Agricurturar, Ryo H.No.3-201, Khauaparem, pittr6lihipai"m rraanoi[ c-tintir]"'

¶21

...PETITIONERS

¶22

AND

¶23

1 . The State of Telangana, through Principal Secretary (Revenue, Land Acquisition) Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶24

The District Collector, Sangareddy District, Sangareddy.

¶25

The Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Sangareddy Division, Sangareddy.

¶26

The Superintendent Engineer, Road and Building, Sangareddy.

¶27

The Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Limited (TSllCL), Rep by its Chairman, Parishram Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶28

The Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Limited (TSllCL), Zonal Officer, Patancheru, Sangareddy District.

¶29

Pashmylaram Notified Gram Panchayat lndustrial Areas Services Society, (Reglstered) (PNGPIASS), lndustrial Area, Patancheru, Sangareddy District

¶30

...RESPONDENTS

¶31

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Court may be} pleased to pass an order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the DECLARATION vide^{No.G21241912O18 dated 03.06.2021 for} acquiring the land to an extent of about^{Ac. 3.22 guntas and an extentof about} 16,941 square yards in Kardanoor Village^{and an extent of Ac. 0-12 gutrtasand} an area of 34,061.59 sq^yards land^{in lsnapur Village, as well as the G.O.Ms.} No. 1B, dated¹ 3.08.2019, as illegal,^{and against the principles landdown in Land} Acquisition Act of 2013, as well as against^{the Article 300(A) of the Constitution} of lndia, and consequently, set^{aside the same,and further direct the} respondents to consider the recommendation^{of the 6th respondent hereinand} stick on to the^proposal of road^{beneaththe High{ensionlines,or direct the 3rd} respondent to^give fresh opportunity^{to the all concerned land lords to be heard} and^pass orders^judiciously or alternatively,^{direct the respondentsto pay the} compensation at the rate of^{present market price} @^{20,000per sq. yard, by} acquiring the plots of the individual effected^{parties as it is in its actualsize} without leaving the corners of the said^plots.

¶32

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶33

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleased to} stay the operation of the DECLARATION vide No.G2l241912018 dated 03.06.2021 for acquiring the land to an extent of about Ac. 3.22 guntas and an extent of about 16,941 square yards in Kardanoor Village and an extent of Ac. 0.12 guntas and an area of 34,06.1 .59 sq yards land in lsnapur Village.

!A :1 2022

Between:

Pashmylaram Notified Gram Panchayat lndustrial Areas Services Societv. Registered PNGPIASS, tndustriat Ar6a,^{pashamylaram,} SanoaieaOv-Oiilii"t Bep. .by.Sgqqlary,.^{P. Satyanarayana, S/9 Nages'waranao,igea idoui} sij viars. ' Occ: tndustriatist, Address: fto! NoJQs,^pJras6 - 3, TSilC thOisiriiipait-,- '--^-' Pashamylaram, Sagaredy District, T.S. - S023Ol.

¶38

AND

¶39

...Petitioner/Respondent No.7

¶40

1 Kodali. I a.ks_lrmi_ Deepthi, Wo K.Murali Krishna, Aged 36 years, occ. Househotd, Fi/o Plot No.39,Ftat No.5O3, Sahara Residelry, A-S R;ju Na,ffi; Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶41

2 Thummala Jayaram,. S/o Thummala Bulli Anjaiah, Aged 50 years, occ. Business, Rl/o^ptot No;1126,1122, Venkatara'mand C-olonv,-etiii'pi"i., Sherilingampally,Hyderabad.

¶42

' Godavari [q:3EGy:"EI[,$"1 District. Hir i',:'s S,T:]fl ,i:;:]ttfittr,t",;:,:,1,,fi,Hi

¶43

4 Medishetty Household, Rl/o _S!dgyi, Frat No.806,Emerard Wo Medishetty Bangaraiah,^-Brock My nome Aged "tEw"t, 50 -striiirgi;prly,years, occ. Madinaguda, Hyderabad.

¶44

5 Kodali Bala Gangadharg- Rqq, S/o Kodali Subbarao, Aged 47 years, occ. _Emptoy_eg,^{R/o FEtNo.401, M;n;oha;;; Eili;;;;} Nt;;;"t virr,iiiii.i.,iij Reddy District.

¶45

6 Manthena. Rajya Lakshmi, Wo Lakshmipathi Raiu, Aged 49 years, occ. Househotd, Rl/o Ftat No.25, Btock.1s, namara;a' wagii, Srictiiiii'ti.G, Jeedimetla, Secunderabad.

¶46

7 Manthena Dhanalakshmi, Wo Manthena Aged 61 years,

¶47

Ka ,GU ntur.

¶48

B Aged 60 years, occ.

¶49

I , occ. Business , R/o MIG

¶50

10 49 years, occ. em Mandal, Guntur.

¶51

...Respondents/Petitioners

15 16

¶57

...Respondents/Respondents

¶58

¶59

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 appoint an advocate commissioner to assist this Hon'ble court to make local inspection of the existing road with reference to 4 approved layouts and also to bring the fact that the proposed 150 feet road of the 4th respondent is not required and that too at the huge cost of the state government which can avoided.

¶60

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶61

Petition under Section I 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to initiate necessary perjury proceedings against the 14th respondent i.e., Superintendent Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Sanga Reddy and^punish him for his false deposition in his counter affidavit.

¶62

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. P. RAMA SHARANA SHARMA

¶63

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI HARENDER PERSHEAD, SPECIAL GP FOR ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶64

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6: SRI L, PRABHAKAR REDDY

¶65

SC FOR TSIIC

¶66

Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI R. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT/ SRI. C. HANUMANTHA RAO

¶67

N NO:20606 OF

¶68

Manthena Udaya Bhaskar Raju, S/o Bapi Raju, Aged 64^years, occ. Business, No 1-2-22111601, Srila Towers, Hydernagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶69

Dhana Laxmi, Wo E. Shivananda Kumar, Aged 40^years, occ. House hold, Ri./o H.No. 6-3-315/ 1, balapura, Erramanzil Colony Hyderabad.

¶70

DasariYadaiah, S/o Laxmaiah, Aged 39 years, occ. Self employed, FUo H.No.6-13, lndrakaran Village, Kandi Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶71

T. Bulli Anjaiah, S/o Venkataratnam, Aged 70 years, occ. Business, Fi/o plot Nos.1126 &1127, Venkataramana Colohy, Besides KpHB, Hyderabad.

¶72

q P?11?_9]Eryl? .Bgqav, .S/o.^{KotiReeddy Aeed 27 years, bci. eusi;ess,R/o} .ljoyl'tgppurqlr-r^{vtlage,Machavarammandal, Guntur} District.

¶73

v. Lrr,onar, s/o v.Narasa Raju.,^lF_26g,Block_.l,lttina Aprts., Andhapur Village, South Bengaluru arnataa-56d 100

AND

...PETtTtoNER(S

1 . The State of Telangana, through Principal Secretary (Revenue, Land Acquisition) Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶78

The District Collector, Sangareddy District, Sangareddy.

¶79

The Revenue Divisional officer clm Land Acqulsition bfficer, sangareddy Division, Sangareddy.

¶80

The Superinten{ent Engineer, Road and Building, Sangareddy,

¶81

The Telang_ana state rndustriar rnfrastructure coifrorati6n Limilbo osrrcr_1, ^^{Eep by.its Chairman, parishram Bhavan, Bashee;bagii;Hvdi,il-oab.-"--,'} 6. The Terangana state rndustriar rnfrastrucjure corpoiiiion Limit"olisrrcr_l Zonal Officer, Patancheru, Sanqareddv District-

¶82

PrshmylaramllSliflqO g,aT qa;$eVit, tn{ustriat Areas Services Society, (Registered) (PNGptASS), tndustriat Ar6a, patanchenr,^-Si"g;i"JOy ilJtftt

¶83

.RESPONDENTS

¶84

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus dury declaring the DECLARATToN vide No.G2l2419l2o,t8 dated o3to6t2021 for acquiring the land to an extent of about Ac. 3.22 guntas and an extent of about '16,941 square yards in Kardanoor Vi[age and an extent of Ac. 0.12 guntas and an area of 34,061.S9 sq yards land in lsnapur Village, as well as the G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 13.08.2019, as i[egar, and against the principres rand down in Land Acquisition Act of 2013, as weil as against the Articre 300(4) of the constitution of lndia, and consequenfly, set aside the same, and further direct the respondents to consider the recommendation of the 6th respondent herein and stick on to the proposal of road beneath the High-tension lines, or direct the 3rd respondent to give fresh opportunity to the all concerned land lords to be heard and pass orders judiciously or alternatively, direct the respondents to pay the compensation at the rate of present market price @ 20,000 per sq. yard, by acquiring the prots of the individual effected parties as it is in its actual size without leaving the corners of the said plots.

¶85

¶86

IANO: 1 OF 2021

¶87

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to stay the operation of the DECLARATION vide No.21241912018 dated 031OG12021 for acquiring the land to an extent of about Ac. 3.22^guntas and an extent of about 16,941 square^yards in Kardanoor Village and an extent of Ac.0.12^guntas and an area of 34,061.59 sq^yards land in lsnapur Village.

¶88

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS,^{SENIOR COUNSELFOR} SRI. P. RAMA SHARANA SHARMA

¶89

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1^{to 4: SRI HARENDER PERSHEAD, SPECIAL} GP FOR ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶90

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5^{& 6: SR! L. PRABHAKAR REDDY} sc FoR Tsllc

¶91

Counsel for the Respondent No.7:^{SRI R. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY'} SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶92

PETITIO 23303

¶93

Kumaraswamy Kolla, S/o.Narayana^{Kolla, Aged} about 50 years, Occ-Pvt Service.^{PJo.5-12-22123,} Flat^{No.203, Sai Keerthi} Apartment, Ganesh Nagar. Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.Koppu

¶94

Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.Koppu Ndrsing Hyderabad.^'Rao, S/o.Ramachandraiah, lged^{aboutsO^years,. Occ-} Bubiness, Fyo:3-4-63i13lC, street^{No.11, Ravindranagar,Ramanthapur,} Hyderabad.

¶95

J.hatnakar Yadav, S/o.Ayyanna,^{Aged about 53 years,Occ-Service,} R/o.P.No.87, Lahari Zade Htisidency,^{Bhanur village, Patancheru (M)' Medak} district

¶96

B.krishna, S/o.Balaiah, Aged about^{50 years, Occ-Business,Fl/-o.H.No.16-'11-} +OSlgO, ftat No.201 , Miruthi^{t/eadoi,vsApartment,SBI officersColorly.}

¶97

[\Ioosarambaoh. Hvderabad.Gude^{ghupai 'S/6.Gude} Pentaiah,^{Aged about 37 years,Occ-Business,} R/o.H.No.1'-42, Kardanoor village,^{Patantheru (M)' Sangareddy district.}

¶98

Maddigapu Ramachandra Reddy,^{S/o.KotiReddy,} fged^{about.33.y-e.arsr O9c-} lT Em"plbyee, Fl/o.H.No.1-272, ' Rentala village, Rentachintala (M), Guntur diskict, A.P.

¶99

PETITIONERS

¶100

AND1 f!9 Sfgle of Telanga.na, Rep. by its prl. Secretary (Revenue and Land

¶101

_^{Acqutsttton)secretariat,Hyderabad.}

¶102

_^{Acqutsttton)secretariat,Hyderabad.} 2. The District Coltector Sarla ReOdy District, Sanga Reddy.

¶103

t ofr ic;'c ;i,,l-*lih;qil3,t,,; ;oii;"r, sansa Reddy

¶104

] ff^{,"i:l"s;aoivrsiona}

¶105

The Superintdndent Eirgineer, Roads and Buildings, Sariga Reddy.

¶106

¶107

The Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Limited (TSilCL), Rep. by its Cha irman, Parishram Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hydera bad.

¶108

The Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Limited, (TSllCL)

¶109

Zonal Officer, Patancheru, Sanga Reddy District

¶110

Pashmylaram Notified Gra m Panchayat Industrial Area Service (Registered) (PNGPIASS), lndustrial Area, Patancheru, Sanga Reddy

¶111

Petition under Articte 226 of the Constitution of tndia drr}t?t3}'f;T: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the declaration issued vide No.G2t241gt2o1g, dated: 0310612021 under section 19(i) of Act. 30 of 2013 for acquiring the land to an extent of about Ac 3-22 gts and an extent of about 16,941 square yards in Kardanoor Virrage and an extent of ac o-12 gts and an area of 34,061.5g sq. yards land in lsnapur village as well as the G.o.Ms.No.1g, dated- 13t0812019, as illegal arbitrary and against the provisions of Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resetflement Act, 2013 as well as against the Articre 3oo (A) of the constitution of lndia and consequenfly set aside the same and further direct the respondents to consider the recommendation of the 6th respondent herein and stick on to the proposal of road beneath the High tension lines.

¶112

202

¶113

Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay the operation of the decraration vide No.o212419r201g, dated: 03-06-2021 for acquiring the land to an extent of about Ac:3-22 gts and an extent of about 16,941 square yards in Kardanoor village and an extent ot Ac: o-12 gts and an area of 34,061.59 sq. yards land in lsnapur Village.

¶114

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. LAKKADI DAYAKER REDDY

¶115

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRt HARENDER PERSHEAD SPECIAL GP FOR ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶116

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.s & 6: SRI L. PRABHAKAR REDDY

¶117

SC FOR TSIIC

¶118

Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI R. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶119

¶120

WRIT PETITION NO:27984 OF 2021

¶121

Between:

¶122

N. Nishanth Reddy, S/o. Niranjan Reddy Aged- 32 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Flat No.A106, Niharikiexocita Lanco Hills Road, Near Delhi Public School, Kajhaguda, Hyderabad - 500 104.

¶123

M.Ramana Reddy, S/o.Subba Reddy, Aged about 42^yearc, Flat No.303, BlockNo.3,R..V.Brindavanam,Miyapur,Hyderabad.

¶124

...'ETIT'ONERS

¶125

AND

¶126

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its^{PrincipalSecretary to Government,} Revenue (L and A) Department, at Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶127

The District Collector, Sangareddy^{District at Sangareddy.}

¶128

The Revenue Divisional Officer cum^{LandAcquisition Officer, Sangareddy} Division at sanga Reddy'

¶129

...RES'.NDENTS

¶130

Petition under Article 226 o'f the^{Constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other^{appropriateWrit, Order or} Orders, Direction or Directions to^{declare the actionof the 3rd respondentin} issuing the notice in No.B3/8264/2018^{dated 05.1o.2021requiringthe petitioners} to receive the compensation^{already determinedbasing on the award dated} O4.1O.2O21 on account of acquisition^{of their lands in Sy.No.228lAfu2and} 228lAAl116 of Kardanoor Village, Patancheru^{Mandal, Sangareddy District,to set} aside the award^proceedings dated^{04.10.2021 and to directthe 3rd respondent to} act in accordance with law.

¶131

:1OF

¶132

Petition under Section¹ 51 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affiddvit filed in support of^{the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the notice issued by the^{3rd respondent in No.B3/8264/2018dated} 05.10.2021, issued under Section^{37 (2) of Right to Fair Compensationand} Transparency in Land Acquisition,^{Rehabilitationand ResettlementAct, 2013,} pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶133

Counset for the Petitioners: SMT. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA

¶134

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI HARENDER PERSHEAD, SPECIAL GP FOR

¶135

ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶136

¶137

WRIT PETITION NO: 33000 OF 2022

¶138

Between:

¶139

lndukuri Srinivasa Raju, S/o l.V.Rama Raju, Aged 60 years, occ. Retired, Fyo H.No.27-17-92, Flat.N.o_. 104, Ananda Lakshmi Towers, TV Tower Rd, ASR Nagar, Bhimavaram, WG District. AP

¶140

Kalidindi Aliveli Manga Devi, Wo K.V.S.R.Raju, Aqed 54 years. occ. House wife, Rl/o H.No. C-28, Qodavar! Homes, Jeedimefla;Hydera6ad.

¶141

lnclukuri Someswara lajq S/o l.V.RamaRaju, Aged- 53 years, occ. private 9ervice,^{Rl/o H.No, 2-62,_RajulaStreet,Gandpavaiam Maidal,} Jallikakinida, West Godavari District. AP

¶142

...PET!T!ONERS

¶143

AND

¶144

The State of Telanga.na, through^principal Secretary (Revenue, Land Acquisition) Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶145

The District Collector, Sangareddy District, Sanqareddv.

¶146

The Revenue Divisional Officer Cirm Land Acqur-sition bfficer, Sangareddy Division, Sangareddy.

¶147

The Superintendent Engineer, Road and Buildino, Sanoareddv.

¶148

The Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Coiporati"on t_imitba ffSttCU Rep by its Chairman, Parishram Bhavan. Hvderabad.

¶149

The Telargana s.tate.lndustrial rnfrastruiture corporation Limited (TSllcL), Zonal Officer, Patancheru, Sanqareddv District.

¶150

PashmylaramJrrolifled Gram^pa-nchayat lndustriar Areas services societv. (Registered) (PNGPIASS ), I ndustriat Area, patancheru, Sangar"ddy D[i?ict

¶151

...RESPONDENTS

¶152

Petition under Article 226 ot the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the DECLARATToN vide No. G212419t2018 dated 03.06.2021 for acquiring the land to an. extent of about Ac. 3.22 guntas and an extent of about 1 6,941 square yards in Kardanoor Viflage and an extent of Ac. 0.12 guntas and an area of 34,061.59 sq yards rand in rsnapur viilage, as weil as the G.o.Ms.No.18, dated 13.08.2019, as irregar, and against the principles rand down in Land Acquisition Act of 2013, as well as against the Article 300(4) of the constitution of lndia, and consequently, set aside the same, and further direct the respondents to consider the recommendation of the 6th respondent herein and stick on to the proposal of road beneath the High-tension lines, or direct the 3rd respondent to give fresh opportunity to the all concerned land lords to be heard and pass orders judiciously or alternatively, direct the respondents to pay the compensation at the rate of present market price @ 20,000 per sq. yard, by acquiring the prots of the individual effected parties as it is in its actual size without leaving the corners of the said plots.

¶153

¶154

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶155

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 stay the operation of the DECLARATION vide No. G21241912018 dated 03.06.2021 for acquiring the land to an extent of about Ac. 3.22 guntas and an extent of about 16,941 square yards in Kardanoor Village and an extent of Ac. 0.12 guntas and an area of 34,061.59 sq yards land in lsnapur Village.

¶156

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. P. RAMA SHARANA SHARMA

¶157

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI HARENDER PERSHEAD, SPECIAL GP FOR ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶158

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6: SRI L. PRABHAKAR^REDDY SC FOR TSIIC

¶159

Counsel forthe Respondent No.7: SRI R. CHANDRA^SHEKARREDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶160

WRIT PETITION NO: 34624 OF 2022

¶161

Between:

¶162

Kallam Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o K^{VenkatappaR5rd!Y,Aged 57 years, occ.^Private} Employee, Flat No. 201 ; Plot No.242lC,^{Nithyas Pride Apartment, AddaguttaSociety,} KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶163

...'ET'T'ONER

¶164

AND

¶165

The State ofTelangana, through Principal Secretary^{(Revenue, Land} Acouisition) Secretariat. Hvderabad.

¶166

Thd Districi Collector, San'gareddy District, Sangareddy.

¶167

The Revenue Divisional Ofticer CLm Land Acquisition^{Officer, Sangareddy} Division, Sangareddy.

¶168

The Superintendent Engineer, Road and^{Building, Sangareddy'}

¶169

The Teiangana State ln-dustrial lnfrastructure^{Corporation.Limited, (TSllCL)} Rep by itsChairman, Parishram Bhavan, Basheerbagh,^{Hy{e1.ab.a{=^..-.} .

¶170

O. Thi: Ti:langana State lndudtrial lnfrastructure Corporation^{Limited(TSllCL)'} Zonal Officer, Patancheru, Sangareddy District.

¶171

Pashmylaram Notified Gram Pahchayat lndustrial Areas-Services.Society, (Regist'ered) (PNGPIASS), lndustrial Area, Patancheru, Sangareddy R,;Eft!,

¶172

Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus dury declaring the DECLARATToN vide No. G2t2419r20.r8 dated 03t06t2o21 tor acquiring the rand to an extent of about Ac. 3.22 guntas and an extent of about

¶173

¶174

'16,941 square yards in Kardanoor Village and an extent of Ac.0.12 guntas and an area of 34,061.59 sq yards land in lsnapur Village, as well as the G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 131o812019, as irlegal, and against the principles land down in Land Acquisition Act of 2013, as well as against the Article 300(4) of the constitution of lndia, and consequently, set aside the same, and further direct the respondents to consider the recommendation of the 6tl respondent herein and stick on to the proposal or road beneath the High-tension lines, or direct the 3rd respondent to give fresh opportunity to the all concerned land lords to he heard and pass orders judiciously or alternatively, direct the respondents to pay the compensation at the rate of present market price arias 20,000 per sq. yard, by acquiring the prots of the individual effected parties as it is in its actual size without leaving the corners of the said plots.

¶175

IA 't oF

¶176

Petition under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased preased to stay the operation of the DECLARATTON No. c2l241gl2o18 dated 0310612021 for acquiring the land to an extent of about Ac.3.22 guntas and an extent of about 16,941 square yards in Kardanoor Viflage and an extent of Ac. o.l2guntas and an area of 34,061 .59 sq yards land in lsnapur Village.

¶177

counsel for the Petitioners: sRr VEDULA sRrNrvAS, sENIoR couNsEL FoR

¶178

SRI. P. RAMA SHARANA SHARMA

¶179

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 4: SRI HARENDER PERSHEAD, SPECIAL GP FOR ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶180

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6: SRI L. PRABHAKAR REDDY

¶181

SC FOR TSIIC

¶182

Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI R. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶183

N 37697

¶184

Between:

¶185

ffi i!!5..1tit1,Y,Miik,?I,%h?lifi;"1iif##s:#J""ifl^{i.e".""3,11',i113ifu,,,} Hyderabad.

¶186

...PETITIONER

¶187

AND

¶188

'1. The State of Telangana, through Principal Secretary (Revenue, Land Acquisition) Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶189

The District Collector, Sangareddy District, Sangareddy

¶190

The Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Sangareddy Division, Sangareddy.

¶191

The Superintendent Engineer, Road & Building, Sangareddy

¶192

The Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Limited, (TSltCL) Rep by its Chairman, ParishramBhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

¶193

The Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Limited^(TSllCL), Zonal Officer, Patancheru, Sangareddy District

¶194

Pashmylaram Notified Gram Panchayat lndustrial Areas Services Society, (Registered) (PNGPIASS), lndustrial Area, Patancheru, Sangareddy District

¶195

...RESPONDENTS

¶196

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to pass an order or direction or writ in the nature of^{Mandamus duly} declaring the DECLARATION vide No.G2l2419l2O1B^{dated03.06.2021for} acquiring the land to an extent of about^{Ac. 3.22 guntas and an extent of about} '1 6,941 square yards in Kardanoor Village and an extent of Ac. 0- 12 guntas and an area of 34,061.59 sq^yards land in^{lsnapur Village, as well as the G.O.Ms.No.18'} dated 13.08.20'19, as illegal, and against the^{principleslanddown in Land} Acquisition Act of 2013, as well as against^{the Article 300(4) of the constitutionof} lndia, and consequently, set aside the same,^{and further direct the respondentsto} consider the recommendation of the 6th^{respondent hereinand stickon to the} proposal of road beneath the Hightension lines, or direct the 3rd respondent to give fresh opportunity to the all concerned land lords to be heard and^pass orders judiciously or alternatively, direct the respondents to pay the compensation at the^- rate of present market^price @ 20,000^per sq.^{yard, by acquiringthe plotsof the} individual effected parties as it is in its actual size without leaving the corners of the said plots.

¶197

¶198

lA NO: I 22

¶199

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 direct the respondents not to disposses the petitioner from his land vide an extent of 200 square yards situated in plot number 713 in survey number 416, situated in SurvayVamshi Layout, lsnapur,^patancheru Mandal, Medak District.

¶200

counsel for the Petitioners: sRr VEDULA sRlNrvAs, sENloR couNSEL FoR SRI. P. RAMA SHARANA SHARMA

¶201

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRt HARENDER PERSHEAD, SPECIAL GP FOR ADVOCATE GEN

¶202

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6: SRI L. PRABHAKAR REDDY SC FOR TSIIC

¶203

Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI R. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶204

¶205

Between:

¶206

Egtlhqp,^{Ngveer1Goud, S/o R.Venkaiah Goud,} a/a 47^yrs, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.1-2411, Kothaguda, Kondapur, Seritingimpaity, n. n. Oiitiiii.---'

AND

PETITIONER

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus deciaring (a) the Dectaration No.G2l241gt2018 dt.o3to6t2o21 for acquiring the land to an extent of 34,061.59 Sq. yds., in lsnapur village as well as G.O.Ms.No.l8 dt.13.08.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and against the principtes of

¶217

¶218

Land Acquisition Act 2013 as well as against Article 300 (A) of the Constitution of lndia and set aside the same (b) direct the respondents to consider the recommendation of the 6th respondent and stick on to the proposal of road beneath the high tension lines or (c) direct the 3rd respondent to^give fresh opportunity to the^petitioner and all concerned land lords to be heard and alternatively direct the respondents to^pay compensation @^{Rs. 30,0001 per} sq.yd.by acquiring the^plots of the effected^parties

¶219

:1OF 2O22

¶220

Petition under Section^'151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court maybe pleased to stay} the operation of declaration No.G21241912O18^{dt.03/06i2021 for acquiring the land} to an extent of 34,061.59 Sq. Yds.,^{in lsnapur Village pendingdisposal of the} present writ petition.

¶221

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. C.N. MOORTY

¶222

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1^{to 4: SRIHARENDER PERSHEAD, SPECIAL} GP FOR ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶223

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5^{& 6: SRt L. PRABHAKAR REDDY} SC FOR TSIIC

¶224

Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI^{R. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY'} SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶225

WRIT PETITION NO: 419A5 0F 2022

¶226

Between:

¶227

R. Naveen Goud, S/o R.Venkaiah Goud, a/a^{47 yrs} ,^{occ.Business,Rl/o H.No.1-2411,} Kothaguda, Kondapur, Serilingampally, R. R.District.

¶228

...PETITIONER

¶229

The Government of Telangana, Represented by lts Principal Secretary, Revenue Land Acquisition, Secretariat B.R.B.K.Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶230

The District Collector, Sanga Reddy District.

¶231

The Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer,^{Sanga Ready} division, Sanga

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring (a) the Dectaration No.G2l241gt2018 dt.03.06.2021 for acquiring the land to dn extent of 34,061.s9 sq. yds., in lsnapur village as well as G.o.Ms.No.1B dt-13.08.2019 as iilegar, arbitrary and against the principles of Land Acquisition Act 2013 as well as against Article 300 (A) of the constitution of lndia and set aside the same (b) direct the respondents to consider the recommendation of the 6th respondent and stick on to the proposal of road beneath the high tension rines or (c) direct the 3rd respondent to give fresh opportunity to the petitioner and all concerned land lords to be heard and pass orders^judiciousry or arternativery direct the respondents to pay compensation @Rs.30,000/-^per Sq.^yd., by acquiring the plots of the effected parties. 1

¶239

Petition under section^'r 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay the operation of decraration No.G2t24'rgt2o18 dt.03.06.2021 for acquiring the rand to an extent of 34,061.59 Sq. yds., in lsnapur Village pending disposal of the present writ petition.

¶240

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. C.N. MOORTY

¶241

counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI HARENDER PERSHEAD, spEclAL GP FOR ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶242

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6: SR! L. PRABHA,KAR REDDY

¶243

SC FOR TSIIC

¶244

Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRt R. CH SHEKAR REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

Between

Tto

40 22

1 . M/s. Vasistha Enerov Private Limited, Represented by its managing director i,i:,y#qifti""f irnr"Trlulxilai:$:t",ws,;liiiflx*?,ff ; Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad -S0O 081.

¶249

M/s. Vasishta Min<irals^priv-ate Limited, Represented by its managing director Sri M.Krishna Chaitanya, S/o. Sri M. Nagh Raiu aberj aUout +fye-ais,-6Ei

¶250

l(r

¶251

business office at Flat No.3, Plot No.195, Sreenilayam Apartments Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500 081.

¶252

Sri Manthena Krishna Chaitanya, S/o. Sri M. Naga Raju, aged about 42 years Occ business, No. B-2-2931821AL138 Road No.72, Ashwini Heights Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033.

¶253

Smt. G. Lakshmi Soujanya, Wio. Sri G.Bangar Raju, aged about 41 years Occ housewife, No. 8-2-293182/AL/38 Road No.72, Ashwini Heights, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033.

¶254

Sri Manthena Sri Krishna Subba Raju, S/o. late Sri Manthena Venkata Surya Narayana Raju aged about 61 years, Occ business R/o. 8-2-293/82lAL/38, Road No.72 backside of Andhra Jyothi, Ashwini Heights Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033.

¶255

Smt. P. Sree Praneetha, W/o. Sri Srinivasa Phani Varma aged about 37 years, Occ housewife No. 8-2-293182/AL/38, Ashwini Heights Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033.

¶256

Sii Penumetcha Sivaji, S/o. late Sri Penumetcha^{LakshmipathiRaju aged} about 44 years, Occ Private service Fl/o. Karlapalem^{post and mandal,Guntur} district.

¶257

...PETITIONERS

¶258

AND

¶259

The State of Telangana, Through^{represented by its Principal Secretary} Revenue, Land AcQuisition department^{Secretariat,Hyderabad.}

¶260

The District Collector, Sangarecidy^{district, Sangareciciy.}

¶261

The Revenue Divisional Officer^{cum LandAcquisition Officer, Sangareddy} Division, Sangareddy.

¶262

The Superintending Engineer,^{Roads and Buildings, SqnggleQd4}

¶263

The Teiangana Stale ln-dustrial^{lnfrastructure Corp_oration Limited.(TSllCL)'} Represenied by its Chairman,^{ParishraniBhav-an Basheerbagh,} ltyig1Sqr.d

¶264

Th; Telangana State lndustrial^{lnfrastruclure CorporationLimited(TSllCL)'} Zonal OffiCe, Patancheru, Sangareddy district.

¶265

Pashamylaram Notified Gram Panchayat^{lndustrialAreasServicesSociety'} (Registeied) (PNGPIASS) lndustrial Aiea Patancheru, Sangareddy d istrict.

¶266

...RESPONDENTS

¶267

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to pass an Order, Direction or Writ and more^particularly one^{in the nature} of Writ of Mandamus declaring final declaration^{issued by the respondentNo.2} vide No.G2l241912O18 dated 03-06-2O21 for acquiring^{larger extent of land} including land of the^petitioners to an extent of 9,931^{square yards, forming part of} Survey Nos.3'16, 392, 393, 399, 409,^{410,412to 417, situated at lsnapur village,} Patancheru mandal, Sangareddy district, along with other lands for the^purpose of construction of four lane carriage way from IDA Pashamylaram lndustrial park to outer ring road and G.o.Ms.No.18, dated 't 3-0g-20 r 9, without following due process of raw and against the recommendations of rhe Terangana state rndustriar rnfrastructure corporation Limited (TSrcL), as iregar and against the

¶268

¶269

principles laid down in The Right to Fair compensation and rransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabiritation and Resetflement Act, 2013, as we[ as against the Article 300-4 of the constitution of rndia and consequenfly set aside the same and further direct the respondents No.1 to 4 to consider the recommendations of the respondent No-6 and stick on to the proposar of road beneath the High{ension lines, or direct the respondent No.3 to give fresh opportunity to all concerned landlords to be heard and pass orders judiciousry or arternativery direct the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioners at the rate of present market price of @ Rs.30,000/- per square yard, by bcquiring the plots of the individual affected parties as it is in its actuar size without reaving the corners of the said plots.

¶270

¶271

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to pass an order staying the operation of the finar decraration issued by the respondent No.2 vide No-G2r2419r2018 dated Cf.-0:6-2021 for acquiring rarger extent of rand including land of the petitioners to an extent of 9,931 square yards, forming part of Survey Nos. 316, 392, 393, 399, 4Og, 41O, 412 to 417, situated at lsnapur village, Patancheru mandar, Sangareddy district, arong with other rands for the purpose of construction of four rane carriage way from rDA pashamyraram rndustriar park to outer ring road and G.O.Ms.No.1g, dated 13_0g_2019, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶272

Counsel for the petitioners: M/S. SHYAM S. AGRAWAL

¶273

counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: sRt HARENDER PERSHEAD, spEcrAL GP FOR ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶274

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6: SRI L. PRABHAKAR REDDY

¶275

SG FOR TSIIC

¶276

Counset for the Respondent No.7: SRt R. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶277

The Court made the fo owing: COMMON ORDER

¶278

THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶279

I.A.Nos.1 and.2 of 2022 IN/AND W.P.No.16342 of 2O21 Ar\Ip

¶280

WRIT PEIITION Nos.2O6O6.233O3. and 27984 of 2O21. 330()0- 34624. 37697 4L . 41985 and 38474 of 2022

¶281

COMMON ORDER:

¶282

All these batch of Writ Petitions are filed questioning the Land Acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short'the Act,20l3), at different stages, however, mostly on the similar grounds and as such all the matters are taken up for hearing together at the request of the learned counsel appearing on either side and they are being disposed of by this Common Order.

¶283

Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel, Sri P.Rama Sharana Sharma, Sri Shyam S Agrawal, Sri L.Dayaker Reddy, and Sri C.N.Moorty, learned counSel for the petitioners and Sri Harender Pershad, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General, Sri R.chandra Shekar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent-Grama^panchayath and Sri L.prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel [or respondent_TSllC.

¶284

¶285

MSK,J Wp_I6342 _202t and batch

¶286

::2::

¶287

The brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of this batch of Writ petitions are as under:_

¶288

Respondent Land Acquisition officer-cum-RDo (hereinafter referred to as 'LAo) issued a notification under Section 11(1) of the Act, 2013, proposing to acquire land to an extent of Acs.40.16 gts., i.e., an extent of land Acs.g.o' gts., in Kardanoor Village, Acs.12.0S gtS., in Isnapur Village and Acs.20.06 gts., in Muthangi Village for the purpose of construction of Four rane carriage way from IDA pashamailaram Industrial park to Outer Ring Road (i.e., at patancheru shankarpally road junction) from Km o /o to 4 / s in Sangareddy District.

¶289

5' while issuing the said preliminary notification, the power under Section 1OA of the Act, 2013, was invoked by the Government by issuing G.o.Ms.No.rg, dated 13.0g.2019 and the administrative sanction for the proposed road was sanctioned under G.o.Rt.No.S, dated 04.01 .2oLg. Thereafter, the draft decraration under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2013, was published uide proceeding No.G2 / 24Lg I 2org,dated os.o6.2o2r and thereafter, .fi award was passed uid.e proceeding No.B3l82 64 / 2olS,dated 04. LO.2O2 I.

¶290

The petitioners herein have filed their objections in responsb to the said preriminary notification and the said

¶291

^ :VIJN,J^tcw I Wp_16342 _202 I and batch

¶292

objections were dealt with b1,' the LAO and reasoned orders were communicated to the petitioners rejecting their objections by the LAO. At that stage, the petitioners in W.P.No.27984 of 2O2l filed W.P.No.2935 of 2021 questioning the G.O.Rt.No.5, dated 04.0i.2018, G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 13.08.2019 and the preliminary notification, dated 13.1 1 .2OI9, issued under Section 11(1) of the Act,2013, firstly, on the ground that^the subject project does not fall within the meaning of^the infrastructure as contemplated under Section 1O(A) of the Act, 2Ol3 and as such exempting the subject aco^uisition from^the provisions of Chapters II and III of the Act,2013, is bad in^law. Secondly, on the ground that the objections raised by^the petitioners therein were not considered by the respondent-LAO. Thirdly, that there is an existing alternative road beneath the existing HT line. Fourthly, on the ground that the survey that is required to be conducted under Section 12 of the Act, 2013, was not conducted, which is a pre-requisite for acquisition of the land. A learned Single Judge of this Court having considered all such grounds dismissed the said Writ Petition by an order, dated 29.04.2021 and further held that the petitioners therein having a very small extent of land are not entitled to question the entire acquisition proceedings for a total extent of land about Acs.40.oo gts., arld that the private interest must yield to

¶293

¶294

. 1-... .- ,r:. .. i

¶295

MSK,J Wp_16342 _2021 and batch

¶296

:4::

¶297

the public interest and also holding that the court shourd refrain from going into the areas, which are weil within the exclusive domain of the technicar experts and court shourd not brush aside their views assailed without adequate material or proof. Aggrieved by the order in w.p.No.2g3s of 2021, the writ Petitioners therein filed the writ Appear No.2g5 of 2021 and the said writ Appeal carne to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this court, by an order, dated 31.01 .2022, and there against sLP (civill uide diary No.23gg9 of 2022 was fired by the writ petitioners therein and the same also was dismissed by the Hon',bre Apex court, by an order, dated 23.09.2022. Thus the challenge to the preriminary notification issued under section 11 (1) of the Act, 2013, has become final. 7 ' out of these batch of writ petitions, w.p.Nos. 16342, 20606, and 233o3 of 2021, 33000, 3z69z, 34624, and 3g474 of 2022, (seven writ petitions) are filed questioning the draft declaration published under Section 1g(1) of the Act, 2013, uid.e proceedings No.G2/24r9/2org, dated 03.06.2021 issued in furtherance of the preliminary notification which was the subject matter of w.p.No.2g3s of 2021, on similar grounds as were raised and considered by this court in w.p.No.2g35 0f 2o2L and also sought for an alternative direction to the

¶298

I t

¶299

¶300

lvtSK.J Wp_I6342 _2021 and batch

¶301

::5

¶302

respondents to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.20,O0O/- per Sq. Yd /Rs.30,00O l- per Sq. Yd.

¶303

Further, in W.P.No.23303 of 2021, except petitioner No.5 all other petitioners have accepted the award, dated O4.lO.2O2l and received compensation as fixed under the award and the same was referred to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (hereinafter referred to as AuthorityJ under Section 64 of the Act,2013, so also in W.P.No.16342 of 2021, the petitioner No.3 received compensation as fixed^under the said Award.

¶304

Though in furtherance of the declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2013, an award enquiry was conducted^{and an} award was also passed as early as on O4.LO.2O21,^{none of the} petitioners in these seven Writ Petitions have chosen to question the award and the said a'nvard has became final. In fact, W.P.Nos.330O0, 34624, and 37697 of 2022 are filed much after passing of the award, dated 04.LO.2021, without challenging the award. Insofar as W.P.Nos.16342, 23303, and 206O O of ZtOZt are concerned, no steps have been taken for amending the prayer so as to challenge the validity of the award passed in furtherance of the impugned draft declaration issued under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2or3. virtually for want of challenging the award, this batch of seven writ petitions have became

¶305

r'
r'

¶306

::6::

¶307

MSK,J Wp_16342 _2021 and batch

¶308

infructuous. Further petitioner No.3 in w.p.No.33000 of 2022 is not a person whose rand is notified for acquisition at alr. 10. Taking into considera.tion the fact that alr the grounds that are raised in this batch of seven writ petitions are arready considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court as confirmed by the learned Division Bench as weil as by the Hon,bre Apex court, the reasons given by the learned single Judge in w'P.No.2935 of 2o2r are equaly applicabre to these batch of seven writ petitions. In spite of, filing a detailed counter by the respondents bringing to the notice of the petitioners about the order passed by a learned singre Judge of this court in wP'No.293s of 2o2r and passing of Award, the petitioners have not chosen to contradict the contents of the counter affidavit or amend the prayer and no reply affidavit is filed.

¶309

11' For the above reasons and for the reasons assigned by a learned single Judge of this court in w.p.No .2gss of 2021, this court is of the considered view that the fate of these writ Petitions cannot be otherwise than the fate of w.p.No.2935 of 2021.

¶310

12' Then coming to w.p.No -27gg4 0f 2021, it is I,ed seeking a writ of Mandamus to decrarre the action of respondent No.3 in issuing a notice bearing No.B3/g264/2o1g, dated os.Lo.2o2r, under section 3z(2) of the Act,2o13, requiring the petitioners to

¶311

iD <D

¶312

MSK,J Wp_16342 _2021 and batch

¶313

receive the compensation already determined under award, dated O4.LO.2O2I, on acquiring the land of the petitioners situated in Sy.Nos.229lA 12 and 22BlAAl116 of Kardanoor Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District and to set aside the award proceedings, dated 04.IO.2021. The petitioners in this Writ Petition are the petitioners in W.P.No.2935 of 2021, wherein the challenge to the preliminary notification was negatived by a learned Single Judge of this Court as^discussed supra: Though relief is sought to set aside the award,^dated O4.LO.2O2\ in the Writ Petition. no copy of the^said award^is placed on record except the notice issued under Section 37(21 of the Act, 2013. In the absence of placing on record a copy^{of the} impugned award, dated O4.1O.2O21, the question of deciding the validity of the said award does not arise. Be that as it may, as on the date of filing of this Writ Petition, the Writ Appeal No.285 of 2021, filed against the order in W.P.No.2935 of 2O2L, was pending and therefore all the grounds that were raised in Writ Petition No.2935 of 2021 were also reiterated by the petitioners in this Writ Petition as well.

¶314

In view of dismissal of the said Writ Appeal No.285 of 2O2l as confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the said grounds need not be considered by this court once again. The other solitary ground that is raised in this writ petition is that the

¶315

MSK,J Wp_16342 _202 t and batch

¶316

::8

¶317

petitioners were not served with any notices under section 2r of the Act, 2013, nor they were heard on determination of the compensation and as such the mandatory requirement of Section 2L of the Act, 2oL3, is not folrowed by the respondent_ LAo while passing an award, dated o4.ro.2o21. In response to the said averment in the affidavit filed in support of writ Petition, the respondents rrave filed a counter affidavit wherein it is categorically stated in paragraph-g, that the notices under section 2L and22 of the Act, 2or3, were given to ail the notified persons through proceedings No.B3/g2 64 /20rg, dated 22'o7.2o2r and that the award enquiry was conducted on 23.08.2021 and that the compensation was calculated as per Sections 26 to 3O of the Act, 2OIS, and then award, dated o4'1o.2o21, was passed. In spite of such specific averment in the counter affidavit, the petitioners have not chosen to file any reply affidavit denying the said averment. Further the respondents have placed before this court a copy of the said notice, dated 22-07.202t, together with a copy of the Panchanama, dated Lo.og.2o2r, through which the said notice under section 2r of the Act, 2oL3, is stated to have been dury served on the petitioners. In the right of the above, the ground of non service of notice under Section 2r of the Act, 2oLs, is not available to the petitionero Hence, this court does not find any

¶318

o-.

¶319

MSK,,I \'p- 16342 _2021 and batch

¶320

merit in the Writ Petition to interfere with the Land Acquisition process, which has already concluded.

¶321

Even assuming that no notice is personally served on the petitioners under Section 21 of the Act, 2OL3 and they were not afforded an opportunity of hearing during award enquiry, the scope of such enquiry is only with regard to quantum of compensation or the persons to whom such compensation is payable. From a perusal of the notice, dated 22.O7.2021, issued under Section 2l of the Act, 2OL3 and the notice issued under Section 37 (21 of the Act, 2013, it is evident that land of the petitioner Nos.l and 2 to an extent of Ac.O.2O gts., and Ac.O.O8 gts., situated in Sy.Nos.228lAAl2, and228/AA/ 1/6 is acquired and a compensation amount of Rs.64,54,013/- and Rs.25,81,605/- respectively was determined by the respondentLAO and the same is offered to be paid in favour of the petitioner Nos.l and 2 herein. As the petitioners herein in spite of receiving the notice under Section 37(21 of the Act, 2013, dated 05.10.2021, have not chosen to come forward to receive the said compensation amounts, the same was deposited with the Authority under Section 77 of the Act, 2013. As there is no dispute about the persons, who are entitled to receive such compensation, the only issue that remains is whether the compensation determined by the LAo is adequate or not. If at

¶322

10::

¶323

MSK,J Wp-l$a2 _2021 and barch

¶324

all the petitioners are not satisfied with the compensation that is awarded under the Award, dated o4.ro.2o21, it is always opEn for the petitioners to seek the reference under section 64 of the Act, 2013, to the Authority for fixation of just compensation. For this reason also, this court is not inclined to interfere with the acquisition proceedings and the award, dated o4.Lo.2o21. Further, it is also rerevant to note that the craim of the petitioners in a[ these batch of writ petitions is only in respect of a smail extent of land when compared to the total extent of Acs.40.16 gts., which is sought to be acquired under the acquisition proceedings in question. The extent of rand that is being claimed by the petitioners in the respective Writ

¶325

Petitions is as under:_

¶326

S.No. 1 2	Writ PetitionNo. 16342of202t 23303of2O2L	ExtentofLand t975 .Yds 200 Yds
3	27984 of2021	3388 Yds
4	34624of2O22	. .Yds 448
5	37697of2022	200 Yds
6	38474 of2022	. 931 Yds
7	33OO0of2022	. 4OOSq.Yds
8	47255of2022	Yds 200
9	41985of2022	. 200 Yds

¶327

Thus, in all the total extent of land in dispute is only 7,942 Sq. yds, out of the totar extent of land Acs.40.16 gts., which is acquired for the project in question. The grounds of

<br>

J-v

11::

iV,ISK,J Wp_l 6342 _202 I and batch

¶332

attack for t]'re acquisition proceedings raised are only a procedural in nature, which are also found to be unsustainable by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. As already observed above, the acquisition proceedings cannot be interdicted as the attack to the acquisition proceedings is only by the petitioners who are holding a small extent of land when compared to the total extent of land, which is acquired.^Hence, at the instance of the petitioners herein, the total^{projectcannot} be stalled. The Hon'ble Apex Court has taken^note of^this situation and in the case of Ramniklal^{N.Bhutta and Another} v. State of Maharashtra and otherslhas been^{pleased to hold}

¶333

as under:-

¶334

"Before parting with this case,^we think^{it necessaryto make a} few observations relevant to land acquisition^{proceedings'Our} country is now launched upon an ambitious^{programmeof all-} round economic advancement to make our economy cornpetitive in the world market. We are anxious to attract^{foreigndirect} investment to the maximum extent. We^{proposeto competewith} china economically. We wish to attain the^{pace ofprogress} achieved by some of the Asian countries,^{referred to as "Asian} tigers", e.g., South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore.^{It is, however,} recognised on all hands that the infrastructure^necessaryfor sustaining such a pace of progress is woefully lacking in^our country. The means of transportation,^powerand communications are in dire need of substantial improvement, expansion and modernisation. These things very often call^for acquisition of land and that too without any delay. It^{is, however,} natural that in most of these cases, the^persons affpcted challenge the acquisition^proceedings in courts.^These challenge the acquisition proceedings in courts. These challenges are generally in shape of writ petitions filed on High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some cases, orders by way of stay or injunction are also made. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the

'1tssz1 i. scc 134

I
,

w p -t 63 42-zoz r anfiisali

¶339

courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power or erint i" "t"y7irrir.,""rio.,. The power under Articre 226 is aiscreiionary. tt witt "u"--."."i""d furtherance of interests or;ustic.;"J";;';;j; only in out of a legal point. And in ttrc marter;i^il# acquisition on the makingfor public purposes, the interesrs ofjustice "; d;;rbric purposes, very often one the interests of justice a.,d and the same. ttre e'g;;;"o'l#,"""". Brr.., in lirif "JIi,, They are injunction or other similar orders, ,,o." pa.Iicutarty granting ofof an interlocutory nature, is equally dt9,1""".1. ti,J,"our,s have to weigh the public interest ;,: ?:"1" ,t " p"ri".,J interest while ;ljff,l",^{the power under Article zzi --i"i."d} any of their direct,i;;x.T1:J;:[,,T,t,:fi l,ff :ffi , j? jl;:rk,:li; account of non-compliance with soml ,dffiili.r*"r,t that the persons interested shalr arso u"_""iiii.i-t'# o.11,'li,* amount of damages to be award"a "" " i,lp"r or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable.

¶340

There are rearessin j:I.^r,:E:ri&?i:.l:if, ,"iij,i,ffi i::d1,ji"*1 the only mode of rei.""". T? wit, it is ultimately a matter of batancing the go.mqeting intlre.s.ts .aevon;;i;,, it is neither possible nor advisable iL ""r. w" n"ri, ""j. iiust that these considerations wilr be duly b;;" in mind by the courts wh,e dealing with challenges to J"q-rlrrron proceedings.,,

¶341

15' A Division Bench of this court arso having considered the Judgment in the case of Ramniklal N.Bhutta and Another v. state of Maharashtra and others (1 supra) and arso in the case of Koripaka Balarnra v. state of Telangana2 has been pleased to hold that the analogr laid down in the above referred Judgments under the Land Acquisition Act, Lgg4, can be adopted for the acquisitions under the Act, 2or3 as weil and extended the same analogr even in respect of the acquisition of the propergr under the provisions of the Act, 2OL3.

¶342

2 W.P.No.t98S4 of 20L9, dated It.O3.2O2O

¶343

¶344

13::

¶345

IVI J I.J Wp- I 6342 -202 I and batch

¶346

Insofar as W.P.Nos.4 1255 and 4 i985 of 2022 are concerned, no specific pleadings are made in these two Writ Petitions except seeking the relief basing on the pleadings in W.P.Nos.16342,20606, and 27984 of 2O21. In the light of the conclusions arrived at by this Court in the above Writ Petitions as noted above, these Writ Petitions are also liable to be dismissed.

¶347

L7. Insofar as the contention i.e., the declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2013, was passed beyond a period of one vear and by operation of law and the oreliminary notification issued under Section 11(1) of the Act, 2013, stand rescinded is concerned, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Special Government Pleader that there was an interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3984 of 2O2O, wherein the preliminary notification was challenged, which was inoperation for a period of 349 days and if that period is excluded in terms of first prouiso to sub section 7 of Section 19 of the Act, 2013, the impugned declaration is well within the time. The said submission of the learned Special Government Pleader is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of the same, the said ground also is not available to the petitioners.

¶348

L4:

¶349

MSK,J Wp_16342 _202 I and batch

¶350

[n the light of the above factuar and settred regar position, this court is not incrined to interfere with the impugned acquisition proceedings and a[ the writ petitions are riable to be dismissed and accordingly, they are dismissed.

¶351

L9' Interim order passed in the respective Writ petitions shall stand vacated. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the petitioners are entitled to seek reference under Section 64 of the Act, 2or3, for enhancement and fixation of just compensation and if the matter is not arready referred to the Authority under section 64 0f the Act, 2013, for enhancement and fixation of just compensation, liberty is ..^{-.granted to the petitionersto make} request for reference under Section 64 0f the Act, 20L3, to the Authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on making such request, the respondent-LAo shall refer the matter to the authority for fixation of the just compensation under Section 64 of the Act, 2or3, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of request from the respective petitioners.

¶352

t.A.Nos. L and 2 of 2022, filed on behalf of petitioner/respondent No.7 seeking various reriefs are concerned, this court is of the considered view that the rerief sought in the said writ petition is beyond the scope of the writ

¶353

¶354

¶355

I i/cg^I tJ l,J r Wp_ I 6342 _202 I and batch

¶356

Petition and petitioner/respondent No.7 cannot maintain such applications in the Writ Petition filed by some third parties. Hence, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 are dismissed.

¶357

As a scquel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in

¶358

this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶359

SD/.I. NAGALAKSHMI DE

//TRUE COPYI/

OFFICER

To,

The Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Sangareddy Division, Sangareddy.

¶364

One CC to Sri P. Rama Sharana Sharma, Advocate [OPUC]

¶365

Two ccs to the AdditionalAdvocate General, High court for'the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUi]

¶366

Two^{ccs to special Government Pleader, High court for the State of} Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶367

One CC to Sri L. Prabhakar Redy, SC FOR TSIIC[OPUC] 6. one cc to Sri R. chandra Shekar Re$dy, SC foq Gram panchayat topucl 7. One CC to Sri C. Hanuryrantha Rao, Advocate [OpUC] 8. One CC to Sri Lakkadi D_ayaker Reddy, Advocdte tOpUCl

¶368

One CC to Smt Vedula Chitralekha Advocate [OpUC] 10. One CC to Sri C.N. Moorty, Advocate [OPUC]11.One CC to M/s. Shyam S. Agrawal, A-dvocate 1OPUC1 12. Two CD Copies

CHR GJZK

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/0212023

COMMON ORDER

l.A.No.1 and 2 of 2022

¶375