1. KalVakota PraSada Rao v. The State of Telangana

Pe tion under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing Memo B/B'l/201 7, dt.4-og-2o17 directing the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum in respect of petitioners land to an extent of AC.2-O2 gts in syNo. 94 of chippakurthi Village, Ramadugu [t/landal, Karimangar District instead of referring to authority concerned under Sec. 64 of Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlemnet Act 20'13 as illegal, arbitrary and vrolative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to r€:ter the matter to compensation 01' the petitioners land. the authority concerned in respect of l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPM P. NO: 38026 oF 20171 Petition unde;' section 151 cpc praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit file(l n support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respon:ents not to disburse the compensation in respect of the petitioners' Iand to ern extent of Ac. 2-02 gts in syNo. 94 0f chippakurthi Vi age, Ramadugu [r/anciar, Karimangar District to the 4th respondent pending disposar of the above writ pe,tit ic,n. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI D.BHASKAR REDDY counsel for the Res;pondents No.1to3 : Gp FoR LAND ACeursrroN Counsel for the Res;pondent No.4 : -- The Court made ther following: ORDER ,& THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.3O51l of 2OL7 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.3 is issuing memo bearing No:B/81/2017, dated

04.Og.2Ol7 directing the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum in respect of petitioners' land to an extent of Ac.2-O2 guntas in Survey No.94 of Chippaturthi Village, Ramadugu Mandal, Karimnagar District instead of referring to concerned authority under Section 64 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Lald Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (for short "the Act"), 2013' A consequential prayer is made to direct respondent No'3 to refer the matter to the authority concerned in respect of compensation of petitioners' land.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners claim to be the owrlers to an extent of Ac'15-12 guntas, Ac'15-12 guntas and Ac. 1O-12 guntas of land respectively situated in Survey No.94 and also other lands in different survey number in Chippakurthi Village, Ramadugu Mandal, Karimnagar District' The respondent No.l issued Gazette Notification on l8'O2'2O17 for acquisition of Ac. 126 -393/+ of patta lald including (Ac'39-02 qL \ 2 t guntas) in S'rrrvey No.94 situated in the iimits of Chippakurthi Village, Rarnerclugu Mandal, Karimnagar District for excavation of gravity car-l als under Dr. BRApCSS project (package_B) The petitioners sr-rbmit that their lalds to an extent of Ac.2_O2 guntas in tSurvey No.94 was acquired along with their other lands in dilferent survey numbers for the said project shou,ing responde,t N. 4 as pattadar and enjoyer of the la,d to an extent of Ac.2-O2 gulltas in Survey No.94, which was coming under acquisition.

3. A preliminary notihcation, dated 1g.O2.20 17, was issued under Secti,rrr i1(1) of the Act, 2013 approved by respondent No.2 and war; published in the Gazette notification and in newspapers. Subsequently, since no objections were received within 60 dayr; in respect of Ac.2-O2 guntas of iand published against resprrrLcent No.4, a decraration under Section 19(r) of the Act, 20 13 wzrs Erpproved by respondent No.2 uide its proceeclings No.G113007 /ttc)17, dated 26.O5.2012 and was published in the Telangana (]azette on 31.05.2017 arld in newspapers on 04.06.2017. 1'[ereafter, a notice under Section 2l(1) of the Act, 2013 was iss,ed on 31.05.2017 a,d u,as published in village and also indivirrual notices under Section 2r(41 of the Act, 2013 were issued <>n 1,he same day fixing the date of a,,vard enquiry on .................r.;w:*ry ,-a-. ..., ;/r/ ,:r, "" ._$. 3

19.06.2017 and the said notices were served on all the interested persons and award enquiry u'as conducted otr 19'06'2017' In the said enquiry, the respondent No'4 was present and deposed that he is pattadar arld enjoyer of Ac'2'O2 guntas of land in Survey No.94 of Chippakurthi Village, Ramadugu Mandal and requested to pay compensation to him and also filed pattadar passbook and Form-lB in support of his claim' Thereafter' the petitioners have f,rled objections before respondent No'3 stating that they are the pattadars of the land in Survey No'94 and the said lald beiongs to them and that their names were entered in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issr.red in their favor and requested not to pay compensation to respondent No.4'

4. The petitioners further submit that they are in possessron and enjol'ment of the subject property and they have not sold the land at any point of time to respondent No'4' It is further submitted the respondent No'4 in collusion with revenue authorities have manipulated the revenue records in his name to claim compensation illegally in respect of their lands' even though the respondent No.4 is not the pattadar and enjoyer of the said land. The petitioners would further submit that if any objections ade received in respect of pa5'T nent of compensation' .,1 'a' ',,,a the objections have to be referred to the concerned authority and in the present. case, the respondent No.3 without referring the matter to thc concerned authority, directed them to approach competent Iorlrm. Aggrieved by the said action, the present Writ Petition is fiied.

5. Learncd r:ounsel for the petitioners draws attention ol this Court to Section 6a e) of the Act, 2013, which is extracted for reference: "64. Reference to Authority: (f) Any person interested who has not a:cr:pted the award may, by written acptlcation to the Collector, require that the rrra[ter be referred by the Collector for the dr:termination of the Authority, as the case malr be, whether his objection be to the mezrsurement of the land, the amount of the cc,rr p,ensation, the person to whom it is pzrya ltle, the rights of rehabilitation, and rese l1.lement under Chapters V and VI or the aFlp,: rtionment of the compensation among the prcrsons interested: Provided that the Collector shall, within a periocl of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority; 5 Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specihed, the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirlY daYs." and submits that since the dispute was in respect of claiming of compensation on the same property by both the petitioners and respondent No.4, the respondent authorities instead of referring the matter to the concerned authority' has paid the compensation to respondent No'4 without hearing the obj ections.

6. A counter has been filed on behalf of respondent No'3' wherein it submitted that the Executive Engineer, KPD-4' SRSP Camp, Choppadandi filed requisition for acquisition of Ac.l26 397+ guntas of patta land including Ac'39-02 guntas of land in Survey No.94 situated in the limits of Chippakurthi Village of Ramadugr Mandal for excavation of gravity canals under DT.BRAPCSS Project (Package-B)' As per the joint inspection report conducted by the Tahsildar' Ramadugu along with Mandal Surveyor, Girdawar, concerned Village Revenue Officer and the officials from the Engineering Department' an extent of Ac.2-O2 guntas of iand in Survey No'94 belongs to Juttu Lachaiah, S/o.Durgaiah (respondent No'4 herein) is _\- \ \ 6 .r-- "i'1''=*dFrr;i1B -:t.'*,.Y;.{ ',:.. coming under acquisition. As per the revenue records, he is the pattadar and r:njoyer of the said lald. Accordingly, the Collector, Karimnagar - respondent No.2 approved the preliminary notification proposal under Section 11(1) of the Act, 2013 ald the same has been published calling for objections within 6O days. Therr:after, no objections were received wrthin 60 days in respect of ttre r;aid land against which the respondent No.4 was published asr perttadar ald enjoyer arld the Collector, Karimnagar approved the rl eclaration under Section 19(1) of the Act, 20 13 and the sarnr: has been published in the neu,spapers. The general noti<:e under Section 2l(1) of the Act, 2013 was issued on 3 1 .05.20 I i' and published in village at conspicuous places and individual notices under Section 2l$l of the Act, 2013 have been issued on the same day lixing the date for award enquiry on 19.06.20 1?', which was served on the all the interested persons. During the award enquiry conducted on 19.06.20rz, the respondent No.4 was present ald given statement that he is the pattadar alrd enjoyer of the said lald and requested for payment of com ltensation arrd also submitted copies of pattadar passbook and li'orm- I B in support of his clajm. Thereafter, on 27.O7.2017, the cetitioners have filed the application stating that they are the pattadars for the land in Survey No.94 and on perusal of noti:e, the petitioners calne to know that some .,a& 7 persons have encroached the land belonging to them and entered their names in the revenue records and requested not to pay compensation for respondent No.4, whose naine was recorded as pattadar and enjoyer. However, the writ petitioners have not submitted any supporting documents for not paying compensation to respondent No.4. 7 . It is further submitted that the petitioners have attended the ofhce of Revenue Divisional Officer - respondent No.3 on

1.6.08.2017, lB.O8.2Ol7 and 22.08.2017 along with others and given statements for payment of compensation in Survey No.94. During the above period, the writ petitioners have not claimed for compensation over Ac.2-O2 guntas of land in Survey No.94, which belonged to respondent No.4. Accordingly, the petitioners were informed uide memo bearing No.B/Bl/2017, dated O4.O9.2O19 and the same has been served on the petitioners on O5.O9.2017. Thereafter, the writ petitioners again attended their office on 06.09 -2017 and given statement for payment of compensation for Ac.2-02 guntas of land in Survey No.94 in addition to the land claimed by them. Even then, they have not claimed any compensation on the subject 1and. Accordingiy, award for Ac.73-l9t/z guntas of lartd including the land in Survey No.94 has been passed uide proceedings No.B/8ll2Ol7, dated 8 .-- \..:::.' I j" .:!_J*Xl.j.iixH '.i_, ..,. l:;i.i *;;r.;.ta -,r..::,t,.....r:i .-.: \..

06.09.2017 anrl payments have also been made to the concerned through NEIIT on O8.O9.2O17 including the writ petitioners for their respectivr: lalds including respondent No.4. B. Leanne,l Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition su trmits that when a notihcation is issued under Section 11(i t of the Act, 2013, objections have to be filed rvithin a stipulated period of 60 days from the date of publication. However, no strch objections have been made by the petitioners That apart, the petitioners have participated in the award enquiry afte'r the issuance of the impugned memo dated

04.O9.20L7. 'I'he petitioners have submitted their applications / objections on '.27 .O7 .2017 i.e. alter the date for award enquiry and having not. filed the objections earlier, such objections were considered a.ncl in the impugned memo, it has been observed that the petitiorrers have not submitted valid documentary proof in support of .,heir claim, as such, the request for not to pay compensation to respondent No.4 was rejected.

9. Heard leilrned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Katta Radha Redd.y, learned Assistalt Government Pleader for Land Acquisition a.pF)eadng for respondent Nos.1 to 3

10. Admittedly, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a copy of the application to refer the matter under Section 9 64 of the Act No.30 of 2013 is not filed in the writ affidavit, though submissions were made that in case of any dispute on the subject property, the respondents ought to have referred the matter to the concerned authority under Section 64 of the Act, 2O 13, however no application has been filed. 1 1. In that view of the matter, recording the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners though having approached the respondents at the time of award enquiry have not submitted any valid documentar5r proof in support of their claim at the earlier instance, and as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no application has been made to refer the matter under Section 64 of the Act, 2O 13, and at this juncture no Mandamus carr be issued to the respondents. As such, the order dated 04.O9.2017 issued by respondent No.3 warrants no interference. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and fails.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- C. DEEPIKA ISTANT REGISTRAR S SECTION OFFICER \ \ To,

1. One CC to SRI D.BHASKAR REDDY, Advocate. IOPUC] +- n \"---> ;WM r ..i1::*st!s:-.1+ .-*

2. fwo CCs kr C P FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana I

3. Two CD Copie:s BSK GJP \ 1 t > I ,,. \ I I t[T 2Xp I :1 )l i' HIGH COURT DATED:30107 t2025 1 \ \ ORDER WP.No.3051'tr of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS b /,11f /I