The High Court · 2025

Judgment

3. The state of Telangana,. Rgp. Qy lts principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderadaa -iOoaZz -'r-" The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakidikapul Hyderabad 500 004 Lng Special -Grade. Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Maheswaram Mandal.

4. Tahsildar, fVaheswaram tVlandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS counsel for the Appellants: sRr p.vENUGopAL, Sr. coUNSEL, REp. FoR

SRI G.PURUSHOTHAM REDDY counsel for the Respondents: Gp FoR LAND AceulsliloN The Court delivered the foilowing: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT APPE AL No.353 OF 2025 IUDGMENT! (Per Hon'ble Sri justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated

07.11.2024, passed in W.P.No.24550 of 2024 by u learned Single ]udge of this Court.

2. Heard Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G. Purushotham Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Govemment Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents.

3. It is the case of the appellants that they are the assignees of the lands in question and the respondent authorities have acquired their lands for the purpose of providing house sites to the beneficiaries. It is their further case that as per the proceedings, dated 22.06.2010, of the Special Grade Deputy Collector, the market value of the lands in question was Rs.32,00,000/- per acre and if , I t I 2 AKS,J & VRKR,J W.A.No.353 of 2O25 \ 30% solatium is added, it comes to Rs.41,60,000/ -. But, contrary to the said proceedings, dated 22.06.2010, the resp'ondents have awarded less amount of Rs.8,00,000/ - per acre as t.x gratia aide proceedings, dated08.12.2011. It is their further case that as per the law laid down by u larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevr:lla Division, Domalguda, Hyderabad and others v. Mekala Pandul, even the assignees are entitled to be paid compensation as per the market value. As admittedly, the ex gratia awarded by the respondents was contrary to the law laid down by the larger Bench of this Court in Mekala Pandu's case (supra) and also the proc'eedings, dated

22.06.2010, the appellants have approached this Cotrrt by filing the subject Writ Petition, and the learned Single Judge of this Court aide impugned order, dated 07.17.2024, was pleasecl to dismiss the subject Writ Petition on the ground of delay and laches, even though the respondents have not filed their detailed counter.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants had contended that the appellants are illiterates and their: valuable right ' AIR 2oo4 (AP) 2,so (i.B) l I I i I 3 AKS,J & VRKR,J W.A.No.353 of 2025 to receive fair and equitable compensation was denied. The appellants were justified in filing the subject Writ Petition with a delay of 12 years. If the respondents have filed their counter, an opportunity would have been given to the appellants to prove their case either by filing reply to the counter affidavit or having an occasion to explain the delay in approaching the Court. But no such opportunity was given to the appellants by the leamed Single ]udge and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the subject Writ Petition without there being any counter

5. Learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants had further contended that as the market value and ex gratia were already determined by the respondents aide proceedings, dated

22.06.2010, the issue remains to be answered by the respondents is as to why they were denying the market value as determined by the proceedings, dated 22.06.2070. If only a counter has been invited from the respondents, the case would have been adjudicated in a better way and in the interest of justice. Therefore, the learned Single ]udge was not justified in dismissing the subject I I 4 AKS,J & VRKR,J W.A.No.353 of 2O25 . \ writ Petition in the absence of a counter. Therefor-e, appropriate orders be passed in the writ Appeal by setting aside the impugned order, dated 07.71.2024, and let the matter be rermitted to the learned single Judge, so as to enable the respon<ients to file a counter and also permit the appellants to file reply, if any, to the said counter.

6. Learned Government pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that the learned singre Judge has dismissed the subject writ Petition on the ground that the appellants have approached the Court with a delay of more than lz vears. Learned Government Pleader further contended that in para,graph No.7 of the impugned order, the learned single Judge has dealt with the contentions of the appellants and has also taken into account the judgment of the' larger Bench of this Court in Mekala pandu,s case (supra), and rightty dismissed the subject writ petition. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ Appeal and the samo is liable to be dismissed I I / / 5 AKS,J & VRKR,J w.A.No.3S3 of 2O2S 7 ' This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the respondents themselves have determined the market value aide proceedings, date d 22.06.2010. Therefore, it is for the respondents to justify their action in paying less compensation in the form of ex gratia to the appellants aide proceedings, dated 0g.72.2071. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the subject Writ Petition on the ground of delay and Iaches, that too, without there being any counter from the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 07.7r.2024, is liable to be set aside. I (

8. Accordingry, the order, dated 07.77.2024, passed in w.P.No.24550 of 2024 by the learned singre Judge is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge to adjudicate the matter on merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after the respondents file a detailed counter and after giving opportunity to both the parties, without being influence d byany of the observations made by this Court. r! 6 AKS,J & VRKR,J W.A.No.353 of 2025 9 with the above observations/directions, the 'vvrit Appeal is disposed of. There sha[[ be no order as to costs. Miscellarleous Applications, if any, pendinS; in this writ Appeal shall stand closed. /TRUE COPYII SD/.A.PRATHIMA IEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Secretary, Revenue Department, ecretariat, Hyderabad- To,

1. The Principal 500022 2 3 4

8. I BSR LS The District collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakidi Kapul, Hyderabad-S0g 004. Il,g Special Gra{e. Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Maheswaram Mandal. The Tahsildar, lVlaheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. fhe section officer, writ posting section, High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The Section Officer, Writ Non-Service Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. one cc to SRI G.PURUSHOTHAM REDDY, Advocate [opuc] Two ccs to GP FoR LAND AceulslIeN, High c.urt for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies o )t1 I HIGH COURT DATED: 08109t2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.353 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS 21 :i',. ii.. 17 il[U 26p . ''\,..