High Court · 2025

Petition Under Article 226 ot the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ Direction order or orders declaring the action of the respondents in taking possession of the Land of 0-07 gts of land in Sy.No.sg with out payment of compensation and without payment of compensation for Ac 0-12 Gts of land severed and rendered useless and without allotting 400 yards of HUDA approved plot to the petitioners as wholly arbitrary illegal without jurisdiction and void and consequently direct them to pay compensation for Ac 0-07 gts in sy.No. 58 Ac 0- 12 gts iln Sy.No. 58 and 59 and ailot 400 sq. yards of Land in HUDA approved lay out. I LA.NO:1 OF 2008 (WPMP.NO:22218 OF 2008) 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 not to take possession and ley the road in the petitioners land in SY.Bo. 58 and 59 of Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, as otherwise petitioners will be put to serious and irreparable loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI CH.SATYASADHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : G.P FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SMT B.MADHAVI The Cou( made the following ORDER ,1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.17113 OF 2OO8 ORDER: Heard Sri S.Satyasadan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.B.Madhavi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for respondent No. I

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are owners and possessors of the land to an extent of Ac. 1.00 gts. in Sy.Nos.SS and 59 situated at Mahankali Viltage, Maheshwaram Mandal. According to the petitioners, petitioner No.l is the owner of Ac.0.O9 Yz gts. ol land in Sy.No.58 Part and Ac.O.7O /z gts. of dry land in Sy.No.59 Part of Mankha_li Village, Maheshwaram Mandal and the sarne was purchased through registered sale deed No.722 dated 03.O3.2004. Similariy, petitioner No.2 is claiming that she is the owner of Ac.O.O9 lz gts. in Sy.No.58 and Ac.O.lO % gts. in Sy.No.59 and the same was purchased through registered sale deed dated 03.03.2004.

2.1 . While things stood thus, the respondent authorities have initiated the proceedings exercising the powers conferred under I 2 the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act' 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the purpose of formation of Outer Ring Road In the notification' it is stated that the petitioners r land to an extent of Ac'0'21 gts' is required' however' they have taken possession of Ac.o.2g gts., out of Ac.1'00 gts'' and paid compensation to the extent of Ac'0'21 gts' only' The petitioners further averred that the remaining extent of Ac'O'12 gts' is also not useful for any purpose, on the ground that the outer Ring Road was laid in the middle ol their lands' The petitioners have approached the respondent authorities and requested them to pay the compensation in respect of the extent of Ac'0'07 gts' and also further requested them to acquire the remaining extent of Ac'O'12 gts' by initiating land acquisition proceedings and pay the compensation' In spite of repeated' requests made by the petitioners' the respondent authorities have not taken any steps' At this juncture' the petitioners filed the present writ petition with the following relief: " ' to issue a writ in the nature of a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ' Direction order or orders declaring the action of the respondents in taking possession of the Land of 0-O7 gts' of land in Sy'No'58 .a I I 3 without payment o[ compensation and without payment of compensation for Ac.o- l2 gts. of land severed and rendered useless and without allotting 400 sq. yards of HUDA approved plot to the petitioners as wholly arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and void and consequently direct them to pay compensation for Ac.0-O7 gts. in Sy.No.Sg, Ac.O_ 12 gts. in Sy.No.S8 and 59 and allot 400 sq. yards of land in HUDA approved layout"

3. Respondent No.3 rrled counter-arfidavit on his behalf and on beha_lf of respondent No.2, wherein it is stated that the respondent authorities acquired Ac.O. 10 yz gts. of land of petitioner No.1 in Sy.No.59 and Ac.O.05 y+ gts. of land of petitioner No.2 in Sy.No.S9 and paid compensation to an amount of Rs.5,LS,O2Sl- to petitioner No. I and Rs.2,57,513/_ to petitioner No.2, pursuant to the Lok Adalat Award dated 16.05.2008. It is further stated that the petitioners are not entitled to claim the benefits as per G.O.Ms.No. l4 dated L8.L2.2OO6 on the ground that the respondents have not acquired 80% of the land of the petitioners. It is further stated that the respondents are acquired the land pursuant to the award only and they have not taken arry excess land as alleged by the petitioners. It is further stated that the remaining extent 4 of Ac.O.12 gts. of land is also not required to the respondents and question of initiating the land acquisition proceedings for acquisition of the said land and payment of compensation to the petitioners does not arise. 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents though acquired Ac.O.2l gts. of land, pursuant to the Award dated 16.05.200g, they have taken excess land to an extent of Ac.0.07 gts. He further submitted that th.e remaining extent of Ac.0. 12 gts is also not useful for aly purpose on the ground that the said Outer Ring Road was laid between the lands of the petitioners. If the respondent authorities conducted detailed enquiry, the real truth wilr come out. 5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that if the petitioners submit representation, the respondent authorities will conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders, in accordalce with law.

6. karned counsel for the petitioners by way ol reply submitted that the petitioners may be permitted to submit detailed representation to the Commissioner of Hyderabad ) "-"'-----' '1/,/./ 5 Metropolitan Development Authority and the said authority may be directed to consider their representation by lixing time limit.

7. Having considered the submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it revea-ls that the petitioners are claiming the title and ownership in respect of Ac.1.0O gts. in Sy.Nos.58 and 59 basing upon the registered sale deeds d,ated, 03.03.2024. It is not in dispute that the respondent authorities have initiated the land acquisition proceedings and acquired part of the property belongs to the petitioners, i.e., Ac.O. lO Yz gts., pertaining to petitioner No.1 and Ac.O.O5 % gts. of petitioner No.2, and paid compensation to an amount of Rs.5, 15,025/- and Rs.2,57,513/- respectively, pursuant to the Lok Adalat Award dated 16.05.2008.

8. The claim of the petitioners that the respondents have taken possession of excess land to an extent of Ac.0.O7 gts. without paying compensation and remaining extent of Ac.0.12 gts. of land is also not useful for any purpose, in such 6 crcumstances, the respondent authorities ought to have initiated land acquisition proceedings

9. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents taken excess land i.e., Ac.0.07 gts., without paying compensation is concerned, whether the said land is in possession of the respondents or not is a disputed questions of fact, the same cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that remaining extent of Ac.O.12 gts. of land is also not useful for any purpose is also disputed question of fact. If the respondent authorities verify the same by physically, the real truth will come out.

10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, especiall_y in view of the submissions made by the respectlve parties, the petitioners are granted liberty to submit representation before the Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority as well as respondent Nos.2 and 3 claiming rights in respect of Ac.O.07 gts. and also l 7 Ac.O.07 gts. and also for acquisition of remaining extent of Ac.O.12 gts 1n Sy.Nos.S8 and 59 by enclosing all relevant documents within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such representation, the Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordalce with 1aw, within a period of three months thereafter, after giving.notice ald opportunity to the petitioners including personal hearing. 1 1. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaleous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- P. GOWRI SHA ASSISTANT REGI RAR SECTION OFFICER \ To

1. The Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Urban Department' Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Projeci Director & Special Collector (1.A.), O'R'R Project, HUDA ' Taranaka, Hyderabad.

3. The Special beputy Collector (L.A.) Unit-1 , ORRP , HUDA, Taranaka' Hyderabad.

4. The Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority' Swarna Jayanti Complex, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Road' Srinivasa Nagar' Ameerpet' Hyderabad.

5. Two CCs to G.P FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELoPMENT'HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaatHyderabad.[oUT]

6. One CC to SRI CH.SATYASADHAN, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SMT B.MADHAVI, Advocate [OPUC] B. Two CD C SA C.C. TODAY oB HES 14 ( ,, 25 rtg M o^ a \r? I HIGH COURT DATED:1910212025 ORDER WP.No.17113 ot 2008 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.