P. Gopala Krishna v. The State of relangana

4. Sri Nalkari Raju, S/o. Late N. Anjaiah, Aged about 53 years, Occ Labourer, FI/o. H. NO. 17-7-30718, Brahmanvadi, Yakatpura, Hydeiabad TS. R4 is impleaded as per C.O. dt. 1710312023 in l.A. No.212022. ...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 toto issue a Writ, or Writs, Order or Direction more in the nature of a Writ of fVlandamus declaring the in action on the part of the respondents ln not issuing notification in respect of the property bearing door No.1-10-210, situated at Ashok Nagar X Roads, Hyderabad, admeasuring 56 sq yards acquired for road widening vide F.No.473Aff1AIACP/03/RWiIMCH/98 dated 16/9/1998 is illegal, unlawful, and unreasonable thereby depriving the right of the petitioner of compensation under the provisions of the The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 w,e.f. 11112014, and in breach of the Constitution Protection under Article 300-A of the Constitution with a further direction to the respondents to issue notification. in respect of property bearing door No.1-1 0-210, situated at Ashok Nagar X Roads, Hyderabad under the provisions of property bearing door No.1-10-210, situated at Ashok Nagar X Roads, Hyderabad in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 to dispose off the representation of the petitioner dated 181312020 by notifying the property bearing door: No.1-10-2'10, situated at Ashok Nagar, admeasuring 56 sq yards under the provisions of the The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 w.e.f. 11112014 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R.A.ACHUTHANAND Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI NAGA SRINIVAS RAO The Court made the following: ORDER ,rl', HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VTJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITON No.10567 OF 2021 DATE OF ORI) ER:03-12-2025 Between: Mr. P. Gopala Krishna S/o. Mr. P. Vittal Rao ... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and three (3) others ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking following . Respondents relief: "... to issue a Writ or Writs Order or Direction more [n the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the in action on the part of the respondents in not issuing notification in respect of the property bearing door No.l-10-210, situated at Ashok Nagar X Roads, Hyderabad, admeasuring 56 sq yards acquired for road widening vide F-No -473|WLNACP /03/RWA4CIV98 dated l6.g.Lg98 is iltegal, unlawtul and I 2 ,] unreasonable thereby depriving the right of the petitioner of compensation under the provisions of the "The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013" w.e.f. 1.1.2014. and in breach of the Constitution Protection under Article 300-,q. of the Constitution with a fuither direction to the respondents to issue notification in respect of properfy" bearing door No.l-10-210 situated at Ashok Nagar X Road.s, Hyderabad, ..."

2. Mr. R.A. Achuthanand, leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that Memo dated 03.11.2025 vide U.S.R. No.122900 of 2025 was filed stating that during the pendency of the writ petition, notificati<ln for land acquisition was issued by respondent No.3 and award w,as also passed on 04.07.2022. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has received compensation amount for the said land. Thus, the writ petition does not survive requiring any further adjudication, and seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition.

3. Mr. Naga Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4, filed counter to the Memo dated 03.11.2025 stating that memo is not only misconceived but also untenable under law. The land {'t a., acquisition compensation has been received by the petitioner behind the back of respondent No.4. The petitioner obtained order dated 27.04.2001 in W.P. No.1298 of 2001 by misrepresentation and by playing fraud on the Court.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submiued that the petitioner is claiming title to the subject land on the basis of will deed dated 15. 10.1992 without furnishing any link documents, and explaining how his father acquired title to the subject land. Further, respondent Nos.l to 3 have not issued notification in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Respondent No.4 was not issued any notice, and award was passed treating the land as patta land and compensation amount for 56.65 square yards amounting to Rs.59,85,000/- was paid to the petitioner. \ t $r* ,*s+tl

5. It is submitted that the subject property is an inam land and respondent No.4 has title to the land and unless the Inam Tribunal issues Occupancy Rights certificate, compensation cannot be paid \ \ to any person including the petitioner. -\ n 4

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for respondent No.4.

7. This court is of the opinion that the cause in the writ petition does not survive requiring any further adjudication as land acquisition proceedings have been initiated and award was passed. Pursuant thereto compensation was also received by the petitioner. If responclent No.4 is aggrieved, he is at liberty to challenge the land acquisition proceedings and award, however, u,ithout doing so he cannot pursue this writ petition and resist the petitioner from withdrawing the writ petition.

8. In view of the above, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The respondent No.4 is granted liberty to challenge the land acquisition proceedings and award whereby the petitioner was granted compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. /TRUE COPY// SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /* SECTToN OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI R.A.ACHUTHANAND' Advocate IOPUC] 2. One CC to SRI NAGA SRINIVAS RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 3.oneCCtoSRIG.IuADHUSUDHANREDDY,SCFoRGHMC[oPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL APMN URBAN DEV, High court for the State bf ' i"riogun;a at HYderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies BSR w \ \ CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:03/1 212025 iJii S t () 1 1 utr: ttrs * 'k ORDER WP.No.10567 ot 2021 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN, WITHOUT COSTS q