Disposed

Udathaneni Venkateswara Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Sept 2025WP/28030/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowners sought release of acquisition compensation pending on undecided claim statements in LAOP No.3 of 2019 before the District Court, Khammam. Following an earlier similar writ disposition, the court disposed of the petition in identical terms, directing consideration of their claims within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed in terms of order dated 03.09.2025 in W.P. No.26489 of 2025; claims in LAOP No.3 of 2019 to be considered and appropriate orders passed within six weeks; no costs.

Udathaneni Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32ss ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 28030 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1 . Udathaneni Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged about 64 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Lingapalem Village, Vemsore Mandal, Khammam District.

¶10

Jakkampudi Venkataratnam, S/o. Chennaiah, Aged about 54 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Lingapalem Village, Vemsore lt4andal, Khammam District.

¶11

...PETTTTONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Prrncipal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition) Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Telangana-500063.

¶14

The Singareni Colleries Co.Ltd, Rep by its Managing Director, Corporate Office, Red Hrlls, Hyderabad.

¶15

The District Collector, Khammam District, Telangana.

¶16

The Revenue Divisional Officer (LAXRDO), Khammam District, Telangana

¶17

l,4andal Revenue Officer, Sathupally L4andal, Khammam District District, Telangana

¶18

The District Court, Rep by its Presiding Officer, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of lie Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to rssue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Itllandamus declaring the action of the respondent no.6 in not deciding the claim statements filed by the petitioners in LAOP.no.3 of 2019 on the file of respondent no.6 and not depositing the compensation amount of Rs.10,95,000/- per acre on par with other land losers, though submitted possession certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Sathupalli l,4andal and other relevant documents establishing clear title, though there are no rrval claimants against the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and in

¶21

¶22

violation to Art 14. 21 and 300A of Constitution and cor- s, rquently to drrect the Respondent no.6 to disburse/deposit the compensation anr: unt of Rs.10,95,0001 per acre on par with other land losers duly deciding the ,: rim statement filed in LAOP.no.3 of 2019 on the flle of respondent no 6 h I the petitioners as expeditiously as possible with interest @ 18% pq annum.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶24

Petrtion under Section .1 51 CPC praying that in the r: (tumstances stated in the affidavit filel in support of the petition, the High Co - t may be pleased to consider the representation dt. 25.1O.2024 submitted t the Dist. Collector Khammam Dist, pending disposal of the above Writ Petltion

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. ABDUL AZAM KHAN

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent's No's 1,3,4 & 5 : GP FOR RE,/ENUE

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRl. P SRI HARSHA R:rr)DY SC FOR Singareni Colleries

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

t \

¶30

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KIIMAR

¶32

w.P. No.28O3O of 2025

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

Heard the Iearned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶35

The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.6, District Court, represented by its presiding Ofhcer, Khammam District, in not deciding the claim statements filed by the petitioners in LAOP. No.3 of 2019 on the file of the respondent No.6 and not depositing the compensation amount of Rs.10,95,000/- per acre on par with other land losers, though submitted possession certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Sathupalli Mandal and other relevant documents establishing clear title though there are no rival claimants against the petitioners hled the present writ petition with a consequential prayer to direct the respondent No.6 to disburse / deposit the compensation amount of Rs. 10,95,000/- per acre on par with other land losers duly deciding the claim statement filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible with interest @^{l8/o per annum.}

¶36

Today, when the malter has been taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in similar set of facts and circumstances, this Court disposed of the W.P. No.26489 of 2025 on 03.09.2025 directing the respondent No.6

¶37

l L I

¶38

% !...-^- '

¶39

to consider the claims of the petitioners therein in L. .,fP. No.B of 2019 and pass aopropriate orders and prayed to pass s;:-i1al order in the present writ. petition.

¶40

The k:arned Assistant Government Pleadcr fr: I .-and Acquisitron does not diripute the submission made by the lcarrr ri counsel lbr the petitioner.

¶41

In thzrt view of the matter, recording the slL[r;'tissions made by the learned counsel on eiLher side, this '"vrit petitior L is ciisposed of ir-r terms of the order dated C3.09.202.5 passed in W.P. l',to.26489 of 2025 by this Ccurt directing the rcspondenl No.5 to corLs.cler Lhc ctaims oI the petitioners herein in LAOP. No.3 of 2019 an, t,ass appropriate orders, in accordance r.,r,ith lavr, rvithin a perr':,1 o1' six u'ceks, frorrr the dat:e of receipt of a copy of this orcler.

¶42

The Registry is directed to append a copy o^.,hc order dated 03.O9.2025 passecl in W.P. No.26489 ol 2025 b5' this rJourt along with this order.

¶43

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of.^'-herc shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

As a sequel, niscellaneous applications, :f any pending,

¶45

shall stand closed.

¶46

,SPr-K.BHAVANI SWAMY I $TANT REGISTRAR / A:'' //TRUE COPY// 'lsEcTtoN oFFtcER

¶47

To,

¶48

1 The Princip-al Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Ac luisition) Secretarrat Buildings, State of Telangana, Hyderabad, Telangana .1:: 0063

¶49

,,--- "_- -----".:--.t!.Er

¶50

.-:€r_-

¶51

2 The Managing Director, Corporate Offrce, Singareni Colleries Co.Ltd, Red Hills, Hyderabad.

¶52

3 The District Collector, Khammam District, Telangana.

¶53

4 The Revenue Divisional Officer (LA)(RDO), Khammam District, Telangana 5 The [,4andal Revenue Officer, Sathupally tr,4andal, Khammam District District, Telangana

¶54

6 The Presiding Officer, District Court,Khammam, Khammam Distrjct.

¶55

7 One CC to SRl. ABDUL AZAIV KHAN Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

8 One CC to SRt. P.SRI HARSHA REDDY SC FOR Singareni Colleries Advocate tOPUCI

¶57

9 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana. lourl

¶58

'10 Two CD Copies

ASV GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910912025

\ \

ORDER

:: I ./a
?: STP ?0ffi

¶65

WP.No.28030 of 2025

¶66

WRIT PETITION IS DISPOSED OF WITHOUT COST

¶67

Qzt
,/
n,l-

Udathaneni Venkateswara Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udathaneni Venkateswara Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Allaboina Sai Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Telangana

Madhu Jithender Sharma, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Tabasum Fatima, Vs The State of Telangana

Pullangari Balraj Vs the State of Telangana

Syed Azam Vs The State of Telangana

Md Tharuk Alia@ Md. Tarooq Vs The State of Telangana