Writ Petition No. 29477 of 2013 · High Court · 2025

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 to issue a writ or orderis more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to conduct. survey and demarcate lands of the petitioners herein in survey no. 412,5,512 and 6 situated at Fatehnagar village of Balanagar mandal in Ranga Reddy district, and to earmark the extents of lands acquired under proceedings bearing no. J12197tj982, dated 01.04.1986 on the file of the fifth respondent, and also the unacquired lands of the petilioners. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 36624 OF 2013) 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 issue interim directions to the respondent authorities to conduct survey and demarcate lands of the petitioners herein in survey no. 412, S, Sl2 and 6 situated at Fatehnagar village of Balanagar mandal in Ranga Reddy district pursuant to their applications dated 13-05-2013 and 03-07-2013, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI Mr. MOHAMMED GHOUSE (party in person) Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 and 2: SRI P. BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION NO: 19824 oF 2021 Between: '1. The Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi. 2. The South Central Railways, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, Through its General Manager. I I I I 3 The Ettate Officer-cum-Additional Divisional Railway Manager' Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad. ...PETITIONERS AND tvlohd.Ghouse,S/o.Mohd.Ashraf,Aged.about5gYears'Occ'Airport Employee, R/o.10-1-16, Fatehnagar, HyderaDao' ...RESPONDENTS PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstancesstatedintheafiidavitfiledtherewith'theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records and quash the order passed in cMA No.30 of 2015 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ranga -Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, dated 01 '04'2021 ' IANO:1OF 2O21 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighcourtmaybepleasedto suspend the order passed in CMA No 30 of 2015 on the file of Principal District Judge,RangaReddyDistrictatLBNagardated0l'04202'lpendingdisposalof the writ Petition IA NO :2OF 2O21 BETWEEN: 1 It/ohd.Ghouse, S/o.Mohd.Ashraf, Aged about 59 Years' Occ' Airport Employee' ivo.r o-t -l o. Fatehnagar, Hyderabad' ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

2. Syeda Anjum, W/o: Ahasan Ali, CCLA No SetUl1/333/20'18 3. Mr. Miza Masood eaig, Wp No'f S4084/2008 H'No 10-1-15' Fatehnagar' Hyde - 't8 IrIr. Shabbir Bhai, WP No.1517212008 Mrs. V. Naga Kumar, WP No.1542212008 Mr. Baqar Baig, WP No.',l5258/2008 4 5 b ....proposed imPlead Petitioner AND

1. The Union of lndia' Rep by its Secretary' Ministry of Railways' New Delhi'

2. The South Central Railways, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, Through its General Manager.

3. The Estate Officer-cum-Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad, ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 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 implead as five of the Petitioner as Petitioners 2 to 6 and pass appropriate order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may seem fit and proper in the circumstance of case. The Petitioner is similarly placed in the case file in CMA No.30/2005, challenge the order of eviction dated: 03-09-2007 under A.P.Building/lease/Rent/Evictions of unauthorized occupants) act 1960 and also in batch of cases have been filed in wp no.15407 of 2008 and al no 29 471 ,2013 files on CW/s13/l/Lc/Central passed under the provisions of AP public premises act(eviction of unauthorized occupants) act 1971. It is therefore prayed that is Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ or others more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus in demolishing the house property bearing H.No.'10-'l-'16, 10-1-15, 10-1-19,j0-1-12,10-1- 12lA,F alhnagar, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad and in Dispossession the petitioner pursuant to order 3-9-07 in from B under sec 5(1) of A.p. public premises (Eviction of Unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971 as being illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and restore possession of the said property to the petitioner, Award damages Rs. '10,00 00, 000i- for illegal demolition of the house property bearing No.10-'1-'16, 10-1-16/1 .10-'t-16/4, 10-1-15:10-1-'l wag:10-1-12:10-1- 12lA1o-1-1611,10-1-16/A, and10-1-21I110-1-13, 10-t-14, 10-1-1S, 1O-1-1St1,10- 1-15, 10-'l-16, 10.1.17.10-1-18;10-1-19; 10-1-20;10-1-2j.10-1-2e"situated at Fathnagar, Santhnagar Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent: SRt MOHD GHOUSE(PARTY lN PERSON The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition N os.29477 of 20 3and1 24 ol 2L COMMO ORDER: Since the parties and the subject matter in these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order' Praver in W.P.No.29477 of 2013:

2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to conduct survey and demarcate lands of the petitioners herein in survey No.4/2, 5, 512 and 6 situated at Fatehnagar Village of Balanagar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District and to earmark the extents of lands acquired under proceedings bearing No.J/219711982 dated

01.04.1986 on the file of the fifth respondent and also the un-acquired lands of the petltioners.

3. The Bh petitioner herein is the sole respondent in WP.No.19824 of

2021. r tn .No.19 24 ol 202t:

4. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writof Certiori)i o calt for records and quash the order dt.01.04.2021 passed in C.M.A.No.3O of 2015 on the file of the Principal District ludge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. I I I 2 E The parties herein are referred to as arrayed in W.p.No.19B24 of 202t. 6' Heard rearned Additionar soricitor Generar of India and sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for the petitioners, and the respondent, who appeared as party-in_person. nte tto sof the

7. Petitioners contend that the 2nd petitioner had acquired land to an extent of Acs.3.36 guntas in Sy.Nos.456, 130, 131, 132 and 133 situated at Fatehnagar, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for the purpose of Iaying broad-gauge line from Balanagar to Sanathnagar by initiating land acquisition proceedings in the year 1981 and an award was passed on 01.04.1986 B. Petitioners further contend that under the award, the Land Acquisition Officer had determined compensation in respect of the land and also for the structures existing in the land acquired at the rate of Rs.21l- per square yard; and that the compensation as cletermined under the award was duly paid.

9. It is further contended by the petitioners that aggrieved by the aforesaid land acquisition award, some of the awardees had sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, lB94 (for short, the 1894 Act') and on reference being made to the court, the same was 3 numbered as L.A.O.P.No.76 of 1981; and that the L.A.O'P' was ordered on z2.Ol.Lggg enhancing the compensation awarded for the land acquired from Rs.2U- to Rs.50/- per square yard.

10. Petitioners further contend that as the respondent and other persons have encroached on to the railway land, which was acquired under the award dt.01.04.1986 and made construction therein without any valid permission or authority, the petitioners have initiated action under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, l97l (for short, 'the 1971 Act') by issuing notices dt.10.02.2006 under Section 4(1) and thereafter, in Form-B under Section 5(1) of the 1971 Act on 03.09.2007.

11. Petitioners further contend that after issuing the aforesaid notice under Section 5(1) of the 1971 Act and on expiry of the mandatory period, the 3'd petitioner had demolished the structures which were constructed by encroaching on to the land belonging to the petitioners acquired earlier by initiating land acquisition proceedings.

12. Petltioners further contend that though on the petitioners issuing Form-B notice under Section 5(1) of the 1971 Act and initiating demolition of the unauthorized and illegal construction made, some of the persons who have made such unauthorized and illegal construction in the land belonging to the petitioners had approached this Couft/by filing a Writ Petition, viileW.P.No.15407 of 2008 and batch, and this Court disposed of ;l 4 the aforesaid Writ petitions by common order dt.12.09.2014 permitting the petitioners therein to avair the remedy of appear under section g of the 1971 Act, against the order of eviction passed by the 3d petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 13' Petitioners further contended that pursuant to the aforesaid reave granted by this Court, the respondent herein and other persons had preferred appeals before the Cout of the principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and the appeal preferred by the respondent herein was numbered as CMA No.30 of 2015. 14' Petitioners further contend that the aforesaid appear preferred by the respondent along with others was disposed of by the Appellate Court by common order dt.01.04.2021, whereby the Couft had allowed the appeals holding that the appellants therein i.e. the respondent herein and others, were entiUed to be paid compensation in accordance with law, for the un-acquired propefties of the appeilants and others, which were demolished by the respondents/petitioners herein.

15. It is contended by the petitioners that the Appellate Court had erred in hording that the petitioners herein have high-handedry demorished the structures existing on the un_acquired property, and thus, erroneously held that the respondent herein and others were entired to compensation. 5

16. Petitioners further contend that the Appellate Court failed to notice that the respondent herein had unauthorizedly occupied the land of the petitioners and made construction therein, which was demolished by the authorities after issuing notice under the 1971 Act, and as such, the respondent is not entitled for being paid with any compensation.

17. On behalf of the petitioners, it is also contended that as per Indian Railways Works Manual (IRWM), the interests of the petitioners-railways is to be safeguarded by providing open space of approximately 30 metre being left between the railway boundary and the nearest edge of the bullding constructed on adjacent Iand and since, the respondent had made construction in the land which was an open land when it was acquired without giving any intimation before commencement of construction, the structures raised by the respondent in the land within the distance prescribed i.e. 30 meters, are to be considered as illegally raised structures and thus, are liable to be demolished.

18. Thus, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the order of the Appellate Court in C.M.A.No.30 of 2015 suffers from an error being contrary to the material on record and also contrary to the'guidelines issued in IRWM and thus is liable to be set aside' Contentions of the resoondent:

19. Per contra, the respondent, who is appearing would submit that his falher, viz., Mohd.Ashraf, S/o parfy-in-person, Rahman, had iiIt ;] 6 purchased land to an extent of 127 square yards under registered sale deed, vide document bearing No.10/1gg1 dt.19.01.1971 and thereafter. constructed a sma, house in the year rg72. rt is further contended by the respondent that his father thereafter added rooms to the aforesaid property up to the year19g3. The fact of the respondent,s father being recognized as owner of the land to an extent of 127 square yards is acknowledged in the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the 3d petitioner' The respondent wourd fufther contend that upon construction being made on the subject land, the same was assigned with house No.1-16.

20. Respondent would further contend that out of total extent of land of 127 square yards belonging to his father, the Land Acquisition officer had acquired the rand to an extent of 33 square yards onry for the benefit of the petitioners and thus, the respondent is left with 94 square yards of land, wherein he had made construction of three floor building by obtaining permissions from the concerned municipar authorities and the said construction made was also duly assessed to property tax, by the concerned mun icipality/GHMC authorities.

21. Respondent would further contend that the 3.d petitioner, without issuing any notice to the respondent, had resorted to demorition of the building existing on the remaining extent of the lancl owned by him, 7 therein claiming that the said structure has been made by encroaching into the land of the petitioners

22. Respondent would further contend that the petitioners, having acquired only 33 square yards of his propety, have now dispossessed him from the remaining extent of land of 94 square yards also by demolishing the structures, which action it is contended is highly illegal, arbitrary, without following due process of law and also in violation of Article 300-4 of the Constitution of India.

23. Thus, the respondent seeks for sustaining the order of the Court Consideration bv the Court:

24. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

25. A perusal of the land acquisition proceedings dt.01.04.1986 would show that the land acquisition authority, viz., Special Deputy Cotlector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad, having initiated land acquisition proceedings pursuant to the requisition received from the Divisional Engineer (Construction)-1, South Central Railway, Secunde#bad, had acquired land to an extent of Acs.3.36 guntas, in Sy.Nos.4, 5, 6, 130, 131, 732 and 133 situated at Fateh Nagar, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for the purpose of laying new broad-gauge railway line between Sanathnagar and Moula-ali. j ;l 8

26. A perusal of the award would also show that the authority having issued draft notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act published in the gazette on 17.0g.1g83, having noticed some mistakes in pubrication of some house numbers, issued an errata notification, vide G.O.Rt.No.36 dt.17.01.1984 published in the Ap Gazette, paft_I, Extraordinary No.132, dt'13'03'19g4, on 12.03'1g84. pending issuance of errata notiflcation, the land acquisition officer had caused award enquiry by lssuing notice under section 5-A of the 1Bg4 Act on 15.11.1g83 and a draft decraration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was published in the gazette on 02.01.1985. 27 ' It is to be noted that in the draft decraration issued it was shown that land of the respondent,s father, viz., Mohd.Ashraf S/o Abdul Rahman was shown as existing in Sy.No.5/2 of Fatehnagar with house bearing House No.1-16 and the extent of land affected is shown as 33 square yards' The Land Acquisition officer thereafter whire undertaking award enquiry after pubrication of draft decraration in respect ofthe respondent,s property had noted as under: "5. H.No.1-16 in Sy.No.5/2 extent 33 sq.yds: In response to the notices issued under Section 9(1) & 10 and 9(3) & 10 of the L.A.Act, Sri Ashraf S/o Rasheed has filed claim petition claiming Rs.750/_ per sq.yd. for the land in addition to the cost of building at Rs.60,000/_ he appeared for this office during award enquiry and he was examined by recording his statement. He deposed that he has purchased a plot of r27 sq.yds, from one sri sangamesh through sare deed I 9 no.LO7l7l, dt.lglll7l. He has submitted Photostat copy of said sale deed in support of his claim own. He has fufther stated that he constructed a small house in 1972 and slowly added rooms up to 1983. In his statement has claimed Rs.400/- per sq.yds, for the land in addition to the cost of building. No other 'person claimed for compensation for this house. From the survey by the survey staff of this office, it is found that only 33 sq.yds, are affected due to acquisition. Therefore, the said area is considered for payment of compensation. The compensation for the land is fixed at Rs.21l- per sq.yd for the reasons already discussed ln preceding para under the head market value. The building value has been fixed by the Executive Engineer, R&B at Rs.9,877.00 and same is allowed. I hold that the claimant Sri Md.Ashraf S/o Rahman is the sole owner of the property under acquisition and I order for the payment of compensation of Rs.16,964.85 as worked out below to him only. "

28. It is also pertinent to note that the authority in the land acquisition award had noted that at the time of issuance of notification for acquiring the lands in Sy.Nos.4, 5 and 6, large number of houses have come up and that the authority is only taking into account the actual position irrespective of various survey numbers mentioned in the sale deeds' Thus, the respondent's father's property, vrz, Mohd'Ashraf, bearing House No.1-16 was mentioned as in Sy.No.5/2 and the extent acquired was shown as 33 square yards consisting of construction therein with ACC I J I t I L0 sheet roofing which was valued at Rs.9,877/_ by the pWD authorities, for payment of compensation in addition to the land cost.

29. Thus, from the aforesaid proceedings, it is evident that the land acquisition authority had acquired rand to an extent of 33 square yards along with the structures existing therein from the respondent,s father and had paid compensation in a sum of Rs.16,964.85 paise. since, no other proceeding is shown to this court of the petitioners making requisition for the remaining extent of the rand of the respondent or the rand acquisition officer having initiated any other proceeding for acquiring the remaining extent of land of the respondent, it cannot be said that the construction in the remaining extent of rand of g4 square yards is by encroaching into the land of the petitioners acquired in the year 1gg6 under rand acquisition proceedings for laying of new broad gauge line from Sanathnagar to Moula-ali and the 3'd petitioner initiating proceedings under the 1g7l Ad. declaring the respondent to be an encroacher.

30. Though on behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the respondent having encroached on to the land acquired for the purpose of Iaying of new broad-gauge rine, it is not the case of the petitioners that though the 3'd petitioner - authority had acquired the rand, no such new line was laid and thus, the land being vacan! the respondent having encroached thereon and made construction for him to be declared as an encroacher into public premlses. . 11

31. On the other hand, the petitloners by initiating action under the I 1971 Act and resorting to demolition of the structure of the respondent, have not only trespassed into the respondent's property but also illegally demolished the house exiting therein without acquiring the remaining extent of land along with the structures and acquiring only part of the land with structures to an extent of 33 square yards.

32. Though on behalf of the petitioners it was sought to be contended that at the time when the land acquisition proceedings were initiated, the entire area was open site and the respondent having made construction without issuing any intimation or obtaining permission from the railway authorities, i.e. the petitioners herein, as noted hereinabove, the land acquisition offlcer in the award passed had categorically recorded that there existed large number of houses in Sy.Nos.4, 5 and 6 of Fatehnagar Village. In fact, the respondent's father, after purchasing the land to an extent of 127 square yards, having made construction up to the year 1983, the said property was also assessed to propety tax.

33. Thus, the claim of the petitioners to the contrary cannot be accepted. Fufther, the land acquisition authority had taken note of the existence of structure and determined the compensation payable for the structure therein. For the said reason also, the claim of the petitioners of the subject site being vacant at the time of acquisition of the land cannot be accepted as valid. T 1,2

34. Further, aggrieved by the aforesaid land acquisition proceedings initiated by issuing preriminary notification on 17.0g.1983 and the award dt.,1.04.1986, reference being sought for under Section 1B of the 1894 Act by some of the awardees to Court, pursuant to which, the compensation in respect of the land acquired having been enhanced from Rs.21l- per square yard to Rs.50/- per squaie yard, vide order dt.22.07.1999 in O.p.No.76 of lgg7, would also go to show the claim of the petitioners oF the rand having been acquired in the year 1981 itserf to be a wrong claim.

35. Insofar as the claim of the petitioners that the Appellate Court having directed for conduct of survey during the pendency of the CMA proceeding, and the survey repoft having found the petitioners to be in possession of the land acquired and as such, the claim of the respondent of the petitioners dispossessing him from his remaining extent of rand and also demolishing the construction made therein, it is to be noted that the Appellate Court dealing with the aforesaid report had recorded a categoricar finding that the report dt.o7-03.2020 fired by the Inspector of Survey, Survey and Land Records, Medchal_Malkajgiri District, is not specific and it onry states the survey numbers were faring within the acquired area without demarcating the acquired and properties for this Court to accept the aforesaid contention. un-acquired 13

36. On the other hand, the respondent herein had approached this t Court by filing Writ Petition, videW,P.No.29477 of 2013 seeklng direction to the survey authorities to conduct survey of the land acquired for the petitioners and also whether the petitioners are in possession any excess land than acquired and submit report to this Court. This Court in the said Writ Petition had directed the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, for deputing a Senior Surveyor for conducting a survey and submit report and pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, having visited the subject site/spot initially on

30.09.2022 along with the petitioner authorities and the respondent herein and their counsel and conducted survey on 30.09.2022 and thereafter, at the request of the respondent herein/petitioner in W.P.No-29477 of 2013 had conducted survey again on 74.10.2022.

37. The Deputy Dlrector upon conduct of survey on 13.09.2022 and L4.10.2022 submitted his repoft to this Court under the cover of letter No.A4159612022 dt.77.10.2022 enclosing therewith a detailed sketch showing the existing railway boundary on the ground and the propedies stated to have existed on the ground as per the report of the Inspector of Su rvey, Medcha l-Mal kajg i ri District, vide lelter dt. 09. 03. 2020.

38. By the aforesaid report submitted into this Court, the Deputy Director has stated that the entire properly of the respondent is falling within the boundary of the acquired land for which compensation was paid i 14 only for 33 square yards and the remalning extent of 94 square yards is in the possession of the rairway authorities and at present the.rand is vacant without any structures.

39. Though on behalf oF the petitioners, it is contended that as per IRWM chapter B para 827, no construction of private building should take place near railway line and an open space of approximately 30 metre should be left between railway boundary to the nearest edge of the building constructed on the adjacent rand, it is to be noted that the said submission is without any merit. If at all no construction has to come up, up to 30 metres between the railway boundary to the nearest eclge of the building, then the authorities are required to acquire that extent of rand in order to prevent any construction coming up within the said distance. If the aforesaid submission made on the part of the petitioners is accepted, then the authorities can acquire the land that is actually required for laying of the railway line, be it narrow gauge, meter gauge or broad gauge and make craim to the adjacent rand up to 30 metres without actually acquiring the said extent of land. Thus, the petitioners without acquiring the land to the said extent cannot claim that any,.itructure existing would have to be treated as an encroachment. 40' Further, a perusar of the rocation sketch annexed to the aforesaid report also shows that the entire extent of the respondent,s property is affected by the rand acquisition. However, the land acquisition authority ,/, 15 while initiating land acquisition proceedings and in the Award passed, had mentioned the extent of land of the petitioners affected by land acquisition to be only 33 square yards. Thus, the initiation of land acquisition proceeding initially by showing afFected land to be only 33 square yards as against the entire extent, and the petitioners basing on the aforesaid land acquisition proceedings, claiming the respondent having encroached the land acquired by it, and initiating action under the 1971 Act without even giving an oppoftunity to the respondent and also without paying the compensation for the remaining extent of land as well as the structures therein, in the considered view of this Court is clear abrasion on the part of the petitioners in dispossessing the respondent from his propefty and also demolishing the structure existing therein, without following due process of law.

41. It is settled position of law that no person shall be deprived of his property except by due process of law, even if the property is required for public purpose. Since, the petitioners having acquired only paft of the land of the respondent, viz., only to an extent of 33 square yards, however, having dispossessed the respondent from his entire extent of property without paying any compensation, the said action resoted to by the petitioners and the land acquisition officer who had initiated proceedings on the basis of the requisition issued by the petitioners, cannot be countenanced. 1 I 16

42. Further, the respondent had claimed the 3.d petitioner having demolished his house existing in the remaining extent of the land, after the land acquisition authorities acquired rand to an extent of 33 square yards consisting of a building with ground floor + two upper floors, and the claim was disputed by the petitioners, this court had directed the concerned municipal authorities to verify their records and to submit a repoft as to whether the respondent's name is shown in municipar records and the said property is assessed to propefty tax. pursuant to the above direction, Iearned standing counsel for GHMC had submitted written instructions under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Moosapet Circle-23, Kukatpally, GHMC, stating that the house bearing No.1_16 renumbered as 10-1-16 existed with ground floor having plinth area of 757.78 square feet is assessed to property tax till 1998-99 and thatthe assessment was blocked in the year 2005_06. 43' By the aforesaid written instructions, it is further stated that the first and second floors have arso been constructed over the ground floor of the aforesaid building and the same are assessed to property tax separatery with house No.10-16/1 and 10-1-16/g. It is arsoetated that the respondent herein had paid property tax on 01.01.2005 for the assessment done in the year 199g_99 for an amount of Rs.70,160/_ in respect of plinth area of 757.7 square feet and thereafter, the assessment was blocked in the year 2005_06 in respect of the said door number. Insofar as hoffiGaring No.10_1_16/1 is concerned, it is stated that the .t 17 record is not being traced out and the authorities could not provide the information relating to building permission, total area, sanction plan, as there is no building at the site after the same having been demolished by the railway depaftment.

44. Since, the survey report as submitted by the Deputy Director clearly indicates the entire propety of the respondent being affected by acquisition, while the award passed is only for part of the said property i.e. to the extent of 33 square yards, the claim of the petitioners that the respondent had encroached on to the railway land and made construction therein without valid permission, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be accepted to declare the respondent as an encroacher of the public premises for the petitioners to initiate proceedings under the 1971 Act.

45. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the order dt.01.04.2021 passed in C.M.A.No.30 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, holding that the petitioners herein having high-handedly demolished the structures existing on the un-acquired property of the respondent herein and evicting him from his property, cannot be said to be either erroneous or contrary to record warranting interference by this Court.

46. Hence, Writ Petition No.19824 of 202L as filed is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly, dismissed. t I I ) ( 18

47. However, taking note of the fact that the respondent,s house was demolished by the petitioners, in particular the 3d petitioner, by issuing Form B notice in the year 2007, and since, then the respondent being deprived of his property, this court is of the view that the petitioners are required to initiate necessary rand acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair compensation and rransparency in Land AcqLiisition, Rehabiritation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and pay the compensation for un_acquired extent of land i.e. 94 square yards along with the structures as existed therein at the time when the 3'd petitioner had resorted to demorition within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

48. In view of the aforesaid directions issued, no further orders are necessary to be passed in W.p.No.29477 of 2013, and accordingly the same is closed.

49. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/.P. GOWRI SHANKAR T REGISTRAR ASSIST //TRUE COPY// ION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRl. Mr. Mohammed Ghouse (party in person) Advoca-te-[OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kuma(Sr. SC for'CENTRL GO!T) IOPUC] 3. Two CC to The GP for Revenue, Hifih Court for the State of Telangana, at 4. Ohe CC to Sri P. Bhaskar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad[OUT] To, TJ BS \L HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 COMMON ORDER rHE S-r4 re. c' k o o 07 ilAn zffi (r f' -t t D WP.Nos.29477 ot 2013 and 19824 ot 2021 CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION No.29477 OF 2013 AND DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION NO.19824 OF 2O2l WITHOUT COSTS @