It is very much relevant to place on record that in S.N.Muklrcrjee v. Union of Indiar and in

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3'd respondent in issuingtheimpugnedMemoRc.No.cll2Tgt2o24dt.o',o2,202srejectingthe objections submitted by the Petitioner for taking over the possession of the entire land admeasuring '143 Sq. Yards instead of only 99 66 Sq Yards along with the house bearing No. 3-1-12 situated at Rajaveedhi, near Ramalayam Temple' Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, relying on the survey alleged to havebeen-conductedbytheTahsildar,Bhadrachalamandtheconsequential PrimaryNotificationbearingRc.No.C/,t27312024dl.o5.o2.2025underFormVll publishedinSaakshiNewspaper,asbeingillegal,arbitrary,unconstitutionaland in contravention cf section 9a(1) of rhe Right to Fair compensation And Transparency ln l-zrnd Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resetilement Act, 2013 and consequently set aside the Memo Rc.No.c t 127312024 dt.os.o2.2o2s and the consequential Primary Notification published on o5.o2.zo2s in so far as sl.No.7 of the notifi<;ation or otherwise to acquire the entire property and to pay the compensation accordingly. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed n suppo( of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all furtrer proceedings pursuant to the Notification bearing Rc_No. c1127312024 dt. 05.o2.2o25 published in saakshi relugu Daily Newspaper in so far as sl.No. 7 of the, said notification is concerned, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI p. KAS| NAGESWARA RAO, FOR M/S. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondents: MS. RADHA, AGp FOR LAND ACQU|S|TION The Court made the following: ORDER i l J I i I I 1r) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.628 8 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "to issue llrrit of Mandamus or any other appropriate direction declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned Memo Rc.No.C/L273/2024, dt.05.02.2025 rejecting the objections submitted by the Petitioner for taking over the possession of the entire land admeasuring 143 Sq.Yards instead of only 99.66 Sq.Yards along with the house bearing No.3-1-12 situated at Rajaveedhi, near Ramalayam Temple, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, relying on the survey alleged to haye been conducted by the T'ahsildar, Bhadrachalam, and the consequential Primary Notification bearing Rc.No.C/ I 27 3/2024, dt.05.02.2025 under Form VII published in Saal<shi Newspaper as being illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and in contravention of Section 941 of The Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and consequently set aside the Memo Rc.No.C/ I 273/2024, dt.05.02.2025 and the consaquential Primary Norification published on 05.02.2025 in so far as Sl.No.7 of the notification or otherwise to acquire the entire property and to pay the compensalion accordingly."

2. Heard Sri P.Kasi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Radha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondents.

3. With the consent of leamed counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2

4. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petitior.r briefly stated arc that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of house bearir.rg No.3-1-12 admeasuring Ac.287.25 Sq.Yards, situated at Rajaveedhi, near Ramalayam Temple, Badrachalam, Badradri Kothagudem District and the same was acquiled from his father, through registered Will Deed dated 06.01.1994. After death of his father, petitioner is continuing in the subject propefty. While things stood thus, the Land Acquisition Officer and Sub Ccllector, Bhadrachalam, acquirecl an extent of Ac.l14.99 Srl.Yards out of 287 .25 Sq.Yards, for public purpose and passcd award bearing Rc.No.l/1004/2012. dated 01 .10.2012 and paid compensation to the petitioner and the petitioner is in possession of remaining land to an extent of Ac.l43 Sq.Yards. The petitioner further averred that the Sub Collector ;rrrd Agency Divisional Officer, Bhadrachalam, issued No {)bjection Certificate (NOC) on 01.06.2013, stating that the petitioner is in posses3ion of approximately to an extent of Ac.143 Sq.Yards and on 08.11.2024, respondcnt No.4 issued notific:ation, proposing to acquire Ac.O.,22% gts.,, for the purpose of development of the Bhadrachalam Town for tourism and development and in the said notification, respondents proposed to acquire the petitioner's land to an extent of Ac.99.66 Sq.Yards out of 143 Sq.Yards. Immediately, as soon as after publication of notification, petitioner approached respondent authorities and submitted objections dated

28.11.2024, requesting them to acquire the entire land to an extent of Ac.143 Sq.Yards, along with the house and pay the compensation. When the respondent authorities failed to consider the said objections, petitioner had approached this Court and filed W.P.No.1710 of 2025 and, during pendency of the said writ petition, respondent No.4 rejected the objections submitted by the petitioner, through impugned order vide memo Rc.No.C/127312024, dated 05.02.2025, on the alleged ground that the land to an extent of Ac.99.66 Sq.Yards is found correct, pursuant to the re-survey conducted by the Tahsildar, Bhadrachalam.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent No.4, without properly considering the objections submitted by the petitioner dated 28.11.2024 and without giving opportunity and without giving any reasons, passed the impugned order dated 05.02.2025. He further contended that the Sub Collector and Agency Divisional 4 Officer, BhzLdrachalam issued NOC on 01.06.2013, u,herein it is stated that the petitioner is in possession of Ac. 143 Sq.Yards. He also colrtended that though the petitioner submitted said documents along with the objections dated 28.11.2024, respondent No.4 without considering the same, passed the impugned,clder and the same is gross violation of principles of natural juslir:e.

6. Pet' t'ontra, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the subject property covered in Sy.No. 121/l3P is Governr.nernt land and the petitioner's name was included in the land acquisition proceedings, in respect of the house bearing No.:;-1-12 RCC house and land admeasuring ,\c.99.66 Sq.Yards. as per the AD Enjoyment Sur-vey, Bhadradri Kothagudem. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer, rightly initiated proceedings, exercising the powers under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20 13 (for brevity 'Act 30 of 2013') in respect of the lancl to an extent of Ac.99.66 Square Yards and hence, respondent No.4 has rightly issued impugned order. She further submitted that the instructions {urrrished by the Land Acquisition Officer were not 5 mentioned in the impugned order, however, respondent No.4 will re-consider the objections submitted by the petitioner, dated 28.11.2024 arrd pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and requested this Court to grant reasonable time.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner has acquired the subject property through his father, basing upon the registered Will Deed dated 06.01.1994. The record further discloses that the Government acquired the land to an extent of Ac. 1 14'99 Sq.Yards out of 281 .25 Sq.Yards and passed award in respect of the said land. Pursuant to thg notihcation issued by respondent No.4, dated 08 .11 .2024, petitioner has submitted detailed objections, dated 28.11.2024 by enclosing copy of NOC issued by the Sub Collector and Agency Divisional Officer, Bhadrachalam, dated 01.06.2013. However, the impugned order dated 05.02.2025, passed by respondent No.4 reveals that respondent No.4, while considering the objections submitted by the petitioner dated 28.11.2024, has not given any reasons. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the 6 r.' impugned order passed by respondent No.4 is gross violation of principler; of natural justice

8. It is very much relevant to place on record that in S.N.Muklrcrjee vs. Union of Indiar and in -.4ssistant Commissitt n er, Commercial Tax Department, Works Co ntract and Leasing, I(ota v. Shukla and Brotherl, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the decision taken by the administrati're authority or quasi judicial authority, reasons must be rec,lrded, except in cases where the requirernent has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication. The administrative action must be supported by the reasons.

9. It is already stated supra, in the case on hand, that respondent No.4 without giving any reasons rejected the objections submitted by the petitioner.

10. Taking into consideration of the facts and circuntstances of the case iLnd also the larv laid down by the Hon,ble Apex Court, the irepugned order passed by respondent No.Ll, dated

05.02.2025 is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside and responrlcnt No.4 is directed to re-consider the objections ' 1t lloy + scc 5()4 ' lzoto; + scc zls 7 submitted by the petitioner dated 28.11.2024 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner, including personal hearing, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that till such time, respondents shall not take any coercive steps in respect of the subject property. I l. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD /-A. SRINIVASA REDDY / ANT REGISTRAR AS ECTION OFFICER 'o'',. ,n" Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat' The State of Telangana' HYderabad' Bhadadri Kothagudem District' z. ihe'oistrict C5llector, Bhadradri Kothagudem District' 5. iii; ft;iik;nri borieitoi, Bhadradri Kothaglgem District' 4. The Land ncquisition'6r?i;;;;; C;';iG Diusionat offi cer' Bhadrachalam' 5. 6# cc i;' Miilpirrii liw Firm, Advocate [oPUCl 6. Two CCs to Gp ro.. irlnt'i"q'riliiib"',-nGr' bourt for tne State of Telangana' 7. Two CD CoPies at HYderabad [OUT] TJ BS s I6 I HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:0310312025 ORDER WP.No.6288 of 2025 SIAr€ o

2. D < ) o \ ),i_ \:.. o 5 lli\'\ il?5 1],. t a .b i DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (rof' W, I