1 Panta Surendra Reddy v. 2. The Commissioner/Secretary to Government

Judgment

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner, Rehabilitation Telangana. and Resettlement, Government of

3. The Telanqana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation' Represented by its "Director, 6h Floor, Parisrama Bhavan, Fateh [tr'laidan Road, Managing Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

4. The District Collector/Appropriate Authority, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.

6. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shabad firlandal, Ranga Reddy District ...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 r pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 5th respondent in illegally trespassing into our lands admeasuring Ac 10-00 Cents in Chandanvelly Village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without following the due procedure as contemplated under Law as illegal, arbitrary, deprivation of constitutional Right to Life as enunciated Under Article-19(1 )(e) and Article-2'l of The constitution of lndia and violative of Article-3o0A of The constitution of lndia and contrary to the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana State Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2014 and also contrary to the provisions of the Telangana State Land Acquisition (Consent Award, Voluntary Acquisition and Lump-Sum Payment towards :+ Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Rules, 2017 and co I iequently direct the respondents not to trespass into our land without following he due procedure as contemplated under The Right to Fair Compensation and - ransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20'13, ttrr Telangana Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisitio , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2014 and the Telangana State Lanr Acquisition (Consent Award, Voluntary Acquisition and Lump-Sum Payment towir ls Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Rules. 201 /. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir rumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma the respondents not to trespass into our land admeasurrr Chandanvelly Village, Shabad Mandai, Ranga Reddy Distrir; due procedure as contemplated under the The Right to Fa Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Reselt the rules made there under, pending the disposal of the writ f r be pleased to direct I Ac. 10-00 Cents in without following the r Compensation and lment Act, 2013 and :tition. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Between: The Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporatior, lvlanaging Director, 6 " Floor, Parisrama Bhavan, Fateh Maicle r Hyderabad Represented by itsl Road, Basheerbagh, ...PETITIONE T RESPONDENT No.3 AND

1. Panta Surendra Reddy, S/o P.Narayan Reddy, Age , Engineer, Ryo 5LH1 '101 , Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Hyde i 2. Rama lMoothy Reddy Peddireddy, S/o Rama Krishna Fl, 42 yrs, Occ Software Engineer, R:/o Hat No.G-1, S,i Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad 8 yrs, Occ Software ddy Peddireddy, Age i Sujana Residency, ...RESPONDENT:; WRIT PETITIONERS 3- The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

4. The Commissioner, Rehabilitation and Resettlen r nt, Government of Collector/Appropriate Authority, Ra I ya Reddy District, Telangana. 5. The District Hyderabad. )

6. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Chevella, Reddy District, Ranga

7. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim order daled 511t2021 made in WP No. 24648 of 2O2O. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A. VENKATESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ALLAM RAMESH Counsel for the Respondents No.'|, 2,4 & 5: SRI T. RAJINIKANTH REDDY, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI L. PRABHAKAR REDDY, S.C. FOR TSIIC Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION NO: 4878 OF 2025 Between:

1. Panta Surendra Reddy, S/o P Narayana Reddy, Age 53 years Occ. Software Engineer R/o SLHl 10'1 , Lanco Hills Manikonda, Hyderabad Represented by GPA holder Challa tvladhu Sudhan Reddy S/o. C. Rama Krishna Reddy, Aged about 56 years Occ. Business R/o. H.No.2-433, Obulam Palli Village, Obulam Palle Mandal YSR Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh.

2. Rama Moorthy Reddy Peddireddy, S/o Rama Krishna Reddy Peddireddy, ! Age. 53 years. Occ. Software Engineer R/o Flat No_G-1, Sai Sujana Residency Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad AND ,..PETITIONERS

1. The State of. Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. Land Acquisition officer, Cum Revenue Divisional officer, Chevellla Division Rangareddy District.

3. Diskict Collector Cum Appropriate Authority, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad 4. Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Ltd. (TSllC), Office at 6th Floor, Parisrama Bhavan, Fateh Maidan Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana 500004 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order, or direction, one more particularly in the nature of a 0 writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Responden. authorities tn issuing proceedings vide Lr. No.1/03/20 18 dt.12.10.2020 on the frie of Respondent No.2 without issuing notice of the Petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, vi, lative of principles of natural justice, apart from contrary to the provision s of Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 and resultantly set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c r )umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour may be pleased to suspend the operation of proceedings Lr. No.1/03/2018 dt.1',t 10.2020 on the file of Respondent No.2 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court n I y be pleased to stay all further proceedings with respect to the acquisition of li nd of the petitioner herein, admeasuring Ac.10.00 in Sy.190 in Chandanvelly VilL ge, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy. pursuant to award vide Lr. No.1/03/20i8 dt. j2.10.2020 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A. VENKATESH, SENIOR : 3UNSEL FOR SRI. ALLAM RAMESI Counsel forthe Respondents No.1 to 3: SRI T. RAJINIKANI H REDDY, ADDITIONAL ADVO( ATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRt M. SRTKANTH REDI) /, S.C. FOR TSIIC ) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Writ Petition Nos.3OOOl of 2018 2+644 of 2O2O and 4878 of 2o25 COMMON ORDER: Writ Petition No.300Ol of 2018 is filed seeking the following prayer "...declaing the action of the respondents more particularly the 4th respondent in issuing preliminary notifi.cation .uide No.I/03/2018-2 dated 27.O2.2O18 (hereinafier referred to as Impugned Notification) in FORM-C as per Rule 6 of Acquisition Rules, 2017 and Section 11 of Acquisition Act, 2013 notifuing that the petitioners lands admeasuring Ac.LO-OO Cents in Chandanuellg Village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddg Distict are proposed to be acquired for public purpose of 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, depiuation of Constitutional Right to Life as enunciated under Article 19(1)(e) and Article 21 of the Constitutioru of India and uiolatiue of Article 3O0A of Tlte Constitution of \ndia and contrary to the prouisions of The Rtght to Fair Compensation and TronsparencA in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlentent Act, 20 13 (hereinafier referred to as Acquisition Act 2O13) and contrary to the prouisions of The 2 \"*'a\ - Telangana State Right to Fair Compensat Transparencg in Land Acquisition Rehat and Resettlement Rules 2O14 (he, refened to as Acquisition Rules, 20! contrary to tlrc prouisions of The Telanga r Land Acquisition Consent Au.tard Yr Acquisition and LumpSum Pagment 1 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rule.; (lereinafier referued to as Acquisitiot,, 2017) consequentlA set aside the prtl notification uide No.I/03/2018-2 27.02.2018...', tn and litation inafter l) and t State ttntary tuards 2017 Rules, minary Writ Petition No.24648 of 2O2O is filerl seeking the following prayer: " declanng the action of ttre respL; more particularlg the Sth respondent in u trespassing into our lands admeasuing O0 Cents in Chandanuellg Village, 5 Mandal, Ranga Reddg District u.tithout _fo tlrc due procedure as contemplated unc'r as illegal, arbitrary, depriuation of Consttt tdents egallg \c 1O- \abad 'otuing r Lanu dional Right to Ltfe as enunciated Under Artick' and Article 21 of The Constitution of lrt,i uiolatiue of Article 300-A of the Constit', India and contrary to the prouisions of Tit to Fair Compensation and Transparencll i Acquisition Rehabilitation and Re settle n',, e(1)(e) a and ':on of t Right t Land rtt Act ) .) 2O13 and contrary to the prouisions of the Telangana State Right to Fair Compensatio,n and. Transp arency in Land Acquisition Rehabititation and Resettlement Rules 2O14 and also contrary to the prouisions of the Telangana State Land Acquisition Consent Auard Voluntary Acquisition and LumpSum Payment towards Rehnbilitatton and Resettlement Rules, 2017 and consequentlg direct the respondents not to trespass into our land tuithout follotuing the due procedure as contemplated under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparencg in Land Acqutsition Rehabilttation qnd Resettlement Act 2013 the Telangana Right to Fair Compensation and TransparencA in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2014 and the Telangana State Land Acquisition Consent Autard Voluntary Acquisition and LumpSum Pagment totuards Relmbilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2O 1 7... " Writ Petition No.487B of 2025 is fited seeking the following prayer: "declaring the action of the Respondent autlnrities tn issuing proceedings uide Lr.No.1/03/2018 dt.12.10.2020 on the file of Respondent No.2 witltotLt issuing notice of the Petttioner as arbitrary, illegal, uiolatiue of 4 pinciples of natural justice apart from c< to the prouisions of Right To Fair Comper And Transparencg In Land Acqt Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 20) resultantlg set aside the same and gra,1 other reliefs as this Honble Court mag ct, and proper in the circumstances of the cas ntrary sation isition 3 and . such em fit z..."

2. Since the issue involved and the pet.r ioners in all these writ petitions are common, these writ J>, titions rvere heard alalogously and are being decided b5' t -ris common order.

3. Facts siving rise to frlins of W.P.I o.3OOO1 of 2OL8z Petitioners claim to be absolute ,wners and possessors of agricultural land admeasur r g Ac.10-00 cents in Chandanvelly Village, Shabad Mer- rda1, Ranga Reddy District (for short 'subject land' hereinr ter) ald are engaged in agriculture activities. On

27.02.2018, respondent No.4 issued impugned notiti ;ation uide No.I/03/2018-2 dated 27.O2.2018 in FORM-(l as per Rule 6 of Acquisition Rules, 2Ol7 and Section 11 I 'Acquisition Act, 2013 by exercising the power under Sectic e 10A of the amended Act, 2Ol7 notifying that the subjr: t lands are 5 proposed to be acquired lor public purpose of respondent No.3. It is submitted that Section 10A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2O 13 (for short ,the 2013 Act' hereinafter) provides that Government in public interest may by notification in the official gazette may exempt the application of Chapter II and III pertaining to determination of social impact and public purpose and provision regarding safeguarding of food security for some projects including the present Industrial Corridors set up by the Government (in which the land can be acquired only upto such distalce on both sides of designated railway lines or roads as specified by the Government for specific projects from time to time and notify the same in the state gazettel. It is submitted that in the instant case, no such notification is issued by the Government specifying the distance upto which the land s a_re to be acquired on the sides of the railway lines or roads as such respondent No.4 applying Section 10A of the 2013 Act and not determining the social impact and public purpose as provided under Section 4 to 1O directly issued the impugned notification.

4. It is submitted that 4th respo I lent issued Impugned Notification and prior to that tht, respe16.rr1" followed the provisions of Acquisition Rules, tl )17 and that those rules can be applied where only u,L en there is consent between the lald owners and the )overnment, otherwise the Government has to follow th : Acquisition Rules, 2014 and as the petitioners never cons;r nted to give their lands had made a representation to the .espondents to exempt their lands from rand acquisition. r- the instant case the 4th respondent did not conduct an,r preliminary enquiry as contemplated under Sub Rule (1) , f Rule 4 of A.P.Acquisition Rules, 2014 and, would further ;ubmit that as per Sub Rule (2) of Rule_4 of Ap Acquisition iules. 2014 and whereas in the present case, the responde:t. No.4 went a}lead with acquisition and issued tlrc im pugned notification before respondent No.3 deposited th r 66515,

5. It is further submitted that as per proviso of Section 26 (3) of the Acquisition Act, 20. \. rhe .1rr, respondent shall take all necessar5r steps to .evise attd update the market value of the land on the lr, .sis of the prevalent market rate in that area before initrat on of any \ ', j f '?; 7 Iand acquisition proceedings but in the instant case the market values in the chandanvelly village were not revised and updated only to overcome the provisions of the of the Acquisition Act, 2013 which provide that the compensation to be granted shall be in accordance with or equal to the market va-lue in that area at the time of initiation of acquisition proceedings. It is further submitted that petitioners have submitted their objections on several occaslons informing the respondents that they are not consenting to give their land under land acquisition and further requested them to exclude their land from land acquisition. However, respondent authorities went ahead with acquisition under Acquisition Rules, 2017.

6. It is further submitted that since the petitioners have not givea consent for giving their land for acquisition, the provisions of Acquisition Rules, 2017 cannot be applied and the provisions of Acquisition Rules, 2Ol4 only have to be applied and strictly followed. Questioning the action of respondents 1n proceeding with acquisition of the petitioners land and issuing impugned notification under Acquisition Rules, 2017 which would be violation of Article 8 300A of the Constitution of India and dr privation of Constitutional Right to Life as enunciated r nder Article 19(1)(e) and Article 21 of Constitution of Indiz . Hence, the present writ petition in W.P.No.30001 of 20 1B s filed

7. Facts giving rise to filing of W.P.I1o.24648 of 2Q2O: Petitioners claims to be absolute joint owners and possessors of subject land having purchast d the same through registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.l'. 83,/2014 on the file of SRO, Chevella, Ranga Reddy Distlr ;t ar-ld since then, the petitioners are cultivating the land r with 1200+ Mango Trees, 500+ Sapota trees, 400+ fruit t:aring trees, 500+ teak trees, rice held in Ac. 1-OO gts., an( also built a house admeasuring 15OO sq.ft., and sen i nt quarters admeasuring 5OO sq.ft., along with water storz ge tank with a capacity of 1,00,000/- litres, 2 bore ur [s etc. The petitioner r,r''hile reiterating the facts in W.t' \o.3000 1 of 2O 18 would further submit that they hav,: app162,r1r"6 respondent Nos.4 and 5 requesting them to 1i rnish copies pertaining to acquisition, however, when res1r, ndent Nos.4 alld 5 failed to furnish such report, petiti: -rer filed AIl application dated 03.07.2018 under Right tl Information n 9 Act seeking copies of notice issued to the petitioners. But till date no such copies are issued and the petitioners were under the impression that acquisition proceedings were dropped. However, personnel of respondent No.4 started trespassing into the subject land and that on 24.12.2020, the officia-ls of respondent No.4 without any notice or intimation trespassed into the subject land and tried to demolish the structures. Questioning the sarne, W.P.No.24648 of 2O2O is filed.

8. Facts givin rise for filing of W.P.No.4878 of 2025: Petitioners claim to be owners of subject land which was originally assigned to one B. Narayalasu,arrry uide Bo.Bll65aO/1967 dated 10.01.1968 under the assignment of Government land and house sites to Freedom Fighters in the State .Policy. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.1O45 dated 15.12.2OO4 was issued amending the earlier G.O.Ms.Nos.185 and 917, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department entitling freedom fighters to sell away their assigned lands and house sites after 1O years. In furtherance to the said G.O. and upon the death of B. Narayanaswalny, his legal heirs, i.e. his wife l0 B.Chukkamma & his three sons, sold the s- cject land to M.Usha Reddy uide sale deed bearing Dor: No.3386 of 2005 dated 13.10.2005, subsequently, v,: rdor of the petitioners herein i.e., N Kamala Devi has 1> trchased the subject property from the said M.Ushr Reddy on

13.05.20 14 uide sale deed bearing Doc. N< .918s/200s. That by virtue of the sale from N.Kamala Devi dated

13.05.2014 uideDoc. No.2383 of 2OI4, the pt:' itioners have become absolute owners and enjoyers o1 the subject property and have been in peaceful possessio:-r thereof.

9. The petitioners came to know that Respondent No.4/ Corporation for the purpose of estei rlishment of lndustria-l Park/Multi Products SEZ has fi1ec a requisition for an extent of Ac.330.10 gts in Sy.No.l9O { )handanvelly Village, Shabad Manda_l, Ranga Reddy Distric- accordingly, respondent No.2 issued a Form-C notifi: ltion under Section 11 of the Act, notifying lands adme: ;uring to an extent of Ac.330.10 gts of Chandanvelly r.i1 rge. Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for Acquisition ncluding the subject property of the petitioners. Respondr nt No.2 has also sought objections to the same from al the persons t interested/affected for settlement by negotiation of the compensation. The petitioners appeared before respondent No.4 and raised objections, when the same was of no avail, petitioners addressed written objections on 12.05.201g and

07.06.2018, but no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioners. When the petitioners enquired about the status of objections, they were informed about the letters addressed by Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella to Executive Engineer and District Forest Officer uideletter dated 26.05.2018, requesting to conduct a spot inspection more particularly noting that the subject land is home to more than 2500 healthy trees. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of respondent authorities in issuing preliminary notification utde No.I/03 /2Olg-2 dated 27.O2.2O18 in Form C under Section 11 of the 2Ol3 Act, contral/ to ' the rules made thereunder had filed writ petition in W.P.No.3OOO1 of 2018 before this Court which is pending for adjudication. It is submitted that despite the objections addressed, petitioners were neither provided with an opportunity of persona_l hearing nor any proceedings came to be issued. The petitioners also filed application under RTI, but no copies have been served. It is t2 further submitted that pursuant to the objections, respondents did not even visit/inspect the pr', mises of the petitioners for two years. The petitioners belier :d that there has been quietus to the proceedings more I) rticularly in view of the fact that Section 19 of the 2Ol3 /,' t states that declaration under Section 19(1) has to be ma le within 12 months from the date of preliminary notificatic n.

10. Hovgever, on 24.12.2O2O, the re spondent authorities trespassed into the subjet i property. Questioning the same, W.P.No.24648 of 2O2r) was filed by the petitioners arrd the same is pending for rdjudication. This Court on O5.Ol.2O2l, cons.( ering the representations/ objections addressed on 12. )5.2018 and

07.06.20|8, passed an interim order in W.l) No.24648 of 2020 directing respondent authorities not to rl spossess the petitioners from the subject property. It is s: bmitted that after 3 years of passing the interim orders, tJt : respondent authorities have hled counter on 03. 12.2024 in the said writ petition and in the documents annexed tl the counter, it was brought to the notice of the petitioner I time that an award came to be I for the first assed uide I 13 Proc.Lr.No.l/0312OL8 dated L2.10.2020. It is further submitted that the award was mechanically passed without arry application of mind arrd without following procedure envisaged under the Act. Questioning the suune, W.P.No.4878 of 2025 is fiIed. COUNTER AFFIDAVITS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES:

11. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3 i.e., Managing Director, Telangana Industria_l Infrastructure Corporation Limited in W.P.No.30O01 of 2018 and while denying the allegations made by petitioners would further submit that requisition proposals were made for acquisition of the land for public purpose namely for establishment of Industrial Park/ Multiproduct Special Economic Zone (SEZ\ in an extent of Ac.2O60-34 gts., in Chandavelly Village, Machanpally, Hayathabad of Shabad Mandal through letter dated 19.07.2017. The Government after duly considering the urgent need in establishing SEZ in one place of industrial corridor in the above said lands, by invoking power under Section 10A of the 2013 Act granted exemption from applicability of the provisions of \ t4 Chapter II and Chapter III of the 2013 r\)r. The said exemption was granted by the Governme-: after duly considering the public interest involved in esri blishment of SEZ to be developed by respondent No. After the Negotiation Committee conducted meetings ir rd discussed various issues with the participants and con .inced of the need and requirement of the acquisition, th<: land owners voluntarily agreed to give their lands b,1. receiving a lumpsum amount of Rs.9,00,000/- per acre. Accordingly, respondent No.3 deposited Rs.65, 10,82,50_ /- with the Lald Acquisition Officer for disbursement ot' the amount. As such respondent No.3 was handed over wjl -r possession of the said land under cover of pancllt rama dated

30.04.2018 to an extent of Ac.668-39 II s., and on 02.08.2018 to an extent of Ac.54-18 gts, and that respondent No.3 is in possession of the subj .ct land and therefore, prayed to dismiss W.P.No.3OOO1 of 2118.

12. A counter affidavit has been filed t,. respondent No.5 on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 4 in W..r No.24648 of 20 18 and while referring to the sale trzr rsactions of petitioners and implementation in the rev: tue records t l5 would submit that as per the report of Tahsildar' Shabad Mandal uide Lr.No.B l72Ll18 dated 25'04'2018' there are 2 buildings for residence of laborers and Mango garden is existing in the subject lands' It is further submitted that LAO at the time of passing award has' considered the structura-l value of the plants' The entire land in Sy'No' 190 to an extent of Ac. 1180-30 gts', at Chandanvelly Village is notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act' It is submitted that TSIIC has filed requisition for a total extent of Ac. 1180-30 gts., in Sy'No'190 of Chandanvelly Village includingassignedlandsinHayathabad'Machanpally Villages of Shabad Mandal for acquisition of Government assigned lands for establishment of Industrial Park/SEZ' It is further submitted that entire compensation amount payable to petitioners was deposited with Land Acquisition Officer.

12.1. A counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent No.6 i.e., the General Manager (AM) (Legal)' TSIIC Ltd., in W.P.No.24648 of 2O2O and would submit that respondent No.3 already deposited an amount of Rs.105,97,O5,O0O/- with LAO/RDO, Chevella in different l6 spells for acquisition of lands and that LAo passed 13 consent awards based upon the negotiatio I s committee settlement under G.O.Ms.No.120 dated 30 r6.2017 and passed general awards aJter conducting err 1uiry for an extent of Ac. 1232-12 gts. It is further str rmitted that Revenue Authorities handed over possession r 'Ac. 1126-35 gts., from out of the acquired lands of tl-randanvelly, Hayathabad and Machanpally Vitlage of Sh,r >ad Mandal. Thereafter, respondent No.3 prepared a layout for Industrial area admeasuring Ac.1569-89 gts., ncluding the lands taken over possession of the acqurr:d lands of Sy.No. 190/P of Chandavelly Village, r-l r.No.190 of Hayathabad and Sy.No.163 of Machanpallt Villages of Shabad Mandal. It is submitted that in r i :w of larger public interest and involvement of infrastrr cture to be provided in the industrial areas, the Governrrt nt after duly considering the urgent need in establishin6; SEZ in one piace of industrial corridor in the above srr d lands, by invoking power under Section 10A of the 2O 1 I Act granted exemption from applicability of the provisions rf Chapter II and Chapter III of the 2O13 Act. The said c:< :mption was granted by the Government after duly co I ;idering the 1 17 public interest involved for establishment of SEZ to be developed by respondent No.3. It is further submitted that the stay granted by this Court on O5.Ol.2O2l is causing hindrance to the developmenta-l activities of industrial park, Chandanvelly Village and prayed to vacate interim order.

13. A counter afhdavit has been filed by respondent No.2 on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.P.No.4878 of

2025. While reiterating the submissions made in W.P.No.24648 of 2O2O, respondent No.2 submits that as per instructions from District Administration, the enjoyment survey was conducted in the month of Dec, 2Ol7 and out of Ac.1182-03 gts., an extent of Ac.668-39 gts., was notihed in form F and published on 24.03.2018 and compensation was also paid to the land losers. It is further submitted that the petitioners lands has been notified in Form C notilication dated 28.O2.2O1a and the s€une was published on 09.03.2018. It is further submitted that in terms of preliminary notification dated 27.O2.2O18, the award proceedings dated l2.lO.2O2O were issued in favour of petitioners and that petitioners are not l8 r, forthcoming to receive compensation amount u-rd filed writ petitions before this Court. As such the casr I are referred to the Authority under Section 76 and 7Z of he Act., uid.e Cheque bearing No.989583 dated 22.06.20I t. The final notification is yet to be published and is in p oposal stage and if the petitioner's land is acquired, the rer; rondents will foliow the due process of law in terms of the 2( 13 Act.

13.1. The Chief General Manager (AM) Legal) TSIIC Ltd., i.e., respondent No.4 has also f-rled a cor_r rter affidavit in W.P.No.4878 of 2025 and reiterated the submissions made in the counter allidavits filed in W.p.l os.3000 1 of 2018 and 24648 of 2O2O. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

14. Mr.A.Venkatesh, learned senior cor nsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions while rc i rring to the details and proceedings of the petitioners ,itle on the subject land would submit that on 27.02.2013 respondent No.2 has issued Form-C notification under !:ction 11 of the 2013 Act notifying the land admeasuring -o an extent of Ac.330.1O gts of Chandanvelly village, Sh:r rad Mandal, (' 19 Ranga Reddy District for acquisition including the subject property of the petitioners. Respondent No.2 has also sought objections to the same from a1l the persons interested/ affected for settlement by negotiation of the compensation. The petitioners appeared before respondent No.4 and raised objections, and when the same was of no avail, petitioners addressed written objections

12.05.2018 and 07.06.2018, but no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioners. Later, on

26.O5.2018, the RDO, Chevella addressed a letter requesting to conduct a spot inspection more particularly noting that the subject land is home for more than 2500 healthy trees. Learned senior counsel further submit that petitioners are aggrieved by the action of respondent authorities in issuing preliminary notihcation uide No.I/03/201'8-2 dated 27.O2.2018 in Form-C under Section 1 1 of the 2O 13 Act, contrary to the rules made thereunder and had filed writ petition in W.P.No.300O1 of 2018 before this Court which is pending for adjudication. It is submitted that despite the objections addressed, petitioners were neither provided with an opportunity of personal hearing nor any proceedings came to be issued. ( 20

15. Learned senior counsel subrni s that on

24.12.2O2O, the respondent authorities trespa;sed into the subject property, questioning the same, W.P No.24648 of 2O2O was filed by the petitioners, which i; pending for adjudication. This Court on 05.01.202L, ccl sidering the representations/objections addressed by the I etitioners on

12.05.2018 and 07.06.2018, passed an inte'im order in W.P.No.2464B of 2O2O directing respondent ar thorities not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject ; roperty. It is contended that after 3 years of passing the in.erim orders, the respondent authorities have filed 3ounter on

03.12.2024 in the said writ petition and in t.r : documents annexed to the counter, it has been brought t: the notice of the petitioners for the first time that an awa: I came to be passed uide Proc.Lr.No.1/03/2018 dated 12.10.2020. It is further submitted that the award was iss;ed without putting notice to the petitioners under Secti rn 21 of the 2013 Act and was passed mechanically. L,: Lrned senior counsel while referring to the impugned rward dated I2.IO.2O2O draws attention of this Court 1< the A',vard Enquiry and Apportionment' and would ;ubmit that inclividual notices as required under SectiorL 21(4) of the 2t 2013 Act were issued on O4.O2.2O19 fixing the date of enquiry on 07.03.2019 at RDO, Chevella to flrle petitioners claims and objections, if any. It is further submitted that the RDO, Chevella inspected lands coming under acquisition along with Tahsildar, Shabad, Mandal Surveyor, MRO, Chandanvelly and recorded that there are no structures and trees eisting in the subject lald and the value is nil.

16. l,earned senior counsel submits that at the time of filing W.P.No.24648 of 2O2O, the award dated

12.lO.2O2O was not mentioned ald no submissions were made at the time of hearing and would further submit that in the said award, the respondent authorities mentioned that claimants have liled W.P.No.3000l of 2018 and W.P.No.2464B of 2O2O before this Court. Learned senior counsel further submits that W.P.No.24648 of 2O2O was filed on 31.12.2020 and W.P.No.30001 of 2018 was filed on

21.O8.2OI8. Learned senior counsel would further submit that in the Award proceedings dated 12.10.2020, the filing of W.P.No.24648 of 2O2O was mentioned. However, the said writ petition was hled on 31.12.2020 and would submit 22 ( that the respondents have referred to a ur it petition in W.P.No.24648 of 2O2O which was not even fi t d on the date of passing of the awa-rd. Learned senior c r rnsel further submits that after individual notices under S,( ction 37(2) of the 2013 Act were given on 25.1O.2O2O i.,:, much later than the date of passing award withor t giving an opportunity to hear their objections art no proper inspection was conducted on the subject r nds and the observations and findings in the award r,t o rld disbelieve the award. As such the petitioners have a ri5,l t to be heard and that notices to acquire must be clea I cogent ald meaningful and would finally submit that tI ( respondents have not followed the procedure prescribecl r Lnder Section 11 of the 2013 Act 17 . ln support of his arguments, le arned senior counsel would rely on judgement of the Hor 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kolkata Municipal t:, )rlrordtion a Bimal Shaht and further . would rely following paragraphs: ' (2024) lo scc -i3l /., 23 "33.1.1. A pior notice informing the bearer of the nght that the State intends to depiue them of the igLtt to property is e ight in itself; a linear extension of the ight to knout embedded in Article 19(1)(a). The Constitution does not contemplate acquisition bg ambush^ The notice to acquire must be clear, cogent and meaningful. Some of the statutes reflect this ight.

33.2.1. Following tlrc ight to a meaningful and effectiue prior notice of acquisition, is the nght of the propertg-bearer to communicate his objections and concetrLs to the authoitg acquiing the propertg. This ight to be heard agatnst the proposed acquisition must be meaningful and not a sLlam.

33.3.1. That the authoities haue heard and considered the objections is euidenced onlg through a reasoned order. It is incumbent upon the authoritg to take an infonned decision and communicate the same to the objector. " 17 .l . Learned senior counsel would further rely on another judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiu Singh a. State of H.P.,z and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: '(2018) 16 scc 270 24 { "6. Under the scLrcme of the Act, ,t objections are filed by the affected tanat the same are required to be d,ecided CoLLector under Section 1S(2) of the I t a,ffording an opportut-Litg of being hearLl Landou.tners, u.tho submitted their objecttt after making furth.er inquiry, as the C may think necessary, he is required to his report to the appropriate Gouemnt, appropiate action in th.e acquisition in qt. t 7. In thts case, u)e find that the () neither gaue anA opportunity to the ap,: as contemplated under Section 1S(2) o-f t and rtor submitted ang report as prouided Section 15(2) of the Act to the Gouerrrmerr to enable the Gouernment to take app., decision. In other utords, tae find thctt il non-compliance of Section 1S(2) of tlte Ac Collector. ht our uieuL, it is mandatory , patl of the Collector to co,mply u,tt procedure prescribed under Section 1S(21 Act sct as to make the acquisition proca legal and in confonnitg utith tte proutsion; Act." tce the wners, )g the t after to the ts and i.lector ;ubmit 'rtt for stion. 'llector zllants te Act ttnder SO AS 'priate ere is tg the rt t.he t tlrc cf the of the 1 8. Learned senior counsel while rel'er .ing to the notification issued under Sectio n 19(71 of tll ) 20 13 Act dated 29.Oa.2O19 would submit that oreliminarv 25 notification was issued on 28.02.2018 with Gazette No.53 dated 09.03.2018 and published 1n Newspapers

21.O3.2018 and the Gazette R.R.No.53 dated 09.03.2018 was extended for another l2 months, which would iapse by

09.03.2019. Whereas, the award was passed l2.lO.2O2O beyond the time period of 2 years without considering the objections of the petitioners dated

12.O5.2018 and 07.06.2OlB. Learned senior counsel further submits that Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella addressed a letter to Executive Engineer and District Forest Officer uide letters dated 26.05.2018, requesting to conduct a spot inspection more particularly noting that the subject land is home to more than 25OO healthy trees and in the award dated 12.10.2O2O, the RDO, Chevella stated that there are no structures ald plants in the subject land, which is contrary to their own communications. SUBMTSSIONS OF LEARNED ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL:

19. Mr.T.Rajinikanth Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General submits that Respondent No.4- Corporation for the purpose of establishment of Industrial -l 26 i Park/Multi Products SEZ has fited a re quisition for an extent of Ac.33O.lO gts in Sy.No.l90 Char danvelly Viilage. Shabacl Mandal, Ranga Reddy District anc objections were received from the petitioners on L l.05.20lg and

07.06.2018 and that individual notices ur.r er Section 37(21 of the 2O13 Act were given on 25.1(.2O2O. Learned Additional Advocate Genera_l placed a ( opy of Gazette No.163 dated 04.01.2019 issued by the l) stnct Collector, Ranga Reddy District under Section 19(l :f the 2013 Act to the extent of petitioners herein. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: 2O. Respondent No.4 - Corporation fo the purpose of establishment of Industrial park/Multi prr clucts SEZ has hled a requisition for an extent of A,:

330.10 gts in Sy.No.190 Chandanvelly Village, Shabacj vlandal, Ranga Reddy District. Accordingly, respondent \o.2 issued a Form-C notification dated 27.O2.201g undt r Section 11 of the Act with Section 10-A exemption, rotifying lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.330.10 gts c I Chandanvelly village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga District for acquisition including the subject pr I rerlv of the Reddr 27 petitioners. The petitioners narnes were shown in Sl.No.68 with title type as assigned for an extent of Ac.12-20 gts. Thereafter, Section 19(7) notifrcation was issued by the District Collector uide R.R.No.75 dated 30.08.20 19 uide File No.GI/9212018 wherein it is submitted that a notification was issued under Section 11(1) of the 2013 Act to an extent of Ac.590-10 gts., in Shabad Mandal, Chandavelly Viliage for public purpose urz., Establishment of Industrial ParklSEZ through the Collector, Ranga Reddy District and Preliminary Notification No.Gl / 92 I 20 18 dated 28.O2.2018 and Gazette No.53 dated 09.03.2018 and published 1n vernacular newspaper on 21.03.20 18 was extended upto 12 months. Considering the explalation under Section 19(7) of the 2O13 Act, the notification dated O9.O3.2O18 was extended for another 12 months. Thereafter, uide Gazette No.163 dated 04.01.2019, Form No.VII was issued with respect to Sy.No.19O of Chandenvelly Village, in which the petitioners lands were declared after conducting due enquiry under Section 15 of 2013 Act. However, the Land Acquisition Officer cum Revenue Divisional Officer passed an award on l2.lO.2O2O. (

21. Section 25 of the 2013 Act marrdiLr within which an award shall be passed licr publication of declaration under Section l9 t I es the period r the date of the 20 13 Act and the same is extracted hereunder for refet e 1Ce: tade: oeiod of n of the is made for the "25. Penod utithin which an autard shall be r The Collector shall make ant autard. uithirt tt traeLue montLrc from the d-ate of publicat;r declaration und.er section 19 and if no anuar t utithin that peiod the entire proceed.ing: acqutsition of the land shall lapse: Prouided that the appropriote Gouemment :;, the pouter to extend the peiod of ttuelue mo its opinion, circu.mstances exist jistifyiw tltt, Prouided fufther that onA such d.ecisiort to ( ) tend the period shall be recorded in wnting and the sc ne shall be nottfied and be uptoaded. oi the tuebsi z of the authoitg concented.,' oLI Ltaue ,ths if in ;ame:

22. Considering thc enquiry under Secli 20 13 Act, the objections of the petitione r rn 15 of the ; were not considered, hor,r,ever, in tl-re ar.r,ard dated l2 LAO recorded that petitioner filed W.p.Nos.

0.2020, ttle roo01/2018 and 24648 of 2O2O belore this Court. It is perr I that W.P.No.2464B of 2O2O was filed on 3l.l W.P.No.30O01 of 2018 was liled on 21.08. surprising to note as to how the L,\ W.P.No.24648 of 2O2O which r.r.as filed on 3 t the Award dated 12. LO.2O2O. That apart thc rent to note

2.2O2O and

1018. It is J referred

12.2O2O in cleclaration / 29 under Section 19 of the 2Ol3 Act was issued on O4.Ol.2Ol9 after hearing the objections of the petitioners and the award was passed on 12.1,0.2020 beyond 12 months from the date of declaration which is in violation of Section 25 of the 2013 Act. As such the award proceedings to the extent of petitioners lands are concerned is bad in law.

23. Admittedly, the award dated l2.lO-2O2O is passed beyond prescribed period under Section 25, from the date of publication of declaration under Section 19(7) and that learned Additional Advocate General after arguing at length fairiy submits that award was passed beyond the prescribed period as mentioned under Section 25 of the 2013 Act.

24. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel on either side, the award dated 12.lO.2O2O subsequent to the declaration under Section 19(1) of the 2O13 Act dated 04.01.2O19 is procedurally ultra vires and therefore cannot be sustained in the eye of law in terms of Section 2 5 of the 20 I 3 Act and the entire acquisition 30 proceedings insofar as petitioners are cor cerned shall lapse. As such, the award dated 12.LO.2O2(t is hereby set aside insofar as the petitioners extent < f lands are concerned. Needless to state that thr: respondent authorities are at liberty to resume tht: proceedings initiated from the stage of Section 1 1 of the 2rl t3 Act afresh to the extent of petitioners are concerned. Tl e petitioners shall be at liberty to raise ail such objecticr s before the authority and same shall be adjudicated .r .dependently without being influenced by any of the cbservations corrtained in this order.

25. Accordingly, these writ Ir, titions in W.P.Nos.3OOO1 of 2O18; 24648 of 2O2O and t3TB of 2025 are disposed of. Miscellaleous petitions, pending, if an1 , shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to I )sts. SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL IIEPUTY REGISTRAR i ::)' (-..' //TRUE COPY// To 'l . The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition ) Telangana,. Secretariat, Secretariat Building, Hyderabac 2. The Commissioner/Secretary to Government, R&R, (F r Water Resource Department, Government of Telangarri 3. The lt/anaqing Director, Telangana State lndustrial lnf i 6'Floor, Parisrama Bhavan, Fateh Maidan Road, Basr SECTION OFFICER Department, State of C), and lrrigation and structure Corporation, )erbagh, Hyderabad.

4. The District Hyderabad. Collector/Appropriate Authority, Ranga Reddy District,

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District. 7. The [\4andal Revenue Officer, Shabad fvlandal, Ranga Reddy District B. The Commrssioner, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Government of Telangana.

9. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.

10.The Land Acquisition oiTicer, Cum Revenue Divisional officer, Chevellla Division Rangareddy Diskict. 1 1. One CC to SRI ALLAIV RAMESH, Advocate [OPUC] 12.Two CCs to the Advocate General, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 13,Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

14.Two CCs to GP for lrrigation & Command Area Development, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

15.One CC to SRI L. PRABHAKAR REDDY, S.C. FOR TSIIC [OPUC] 16.One CC to SRI [vl SRIKANTH REDDY, S.C. FOR TSIIC [OPUC] MP i \ HIGH COURT DAT D:2611112025 c t oo 0 ":tl 2ti1D I .'.1(O CO] 'IMON ORDER W.P.Nos.30001 OF 2018;2464ta OF 2020 AND 4878 0F 2025 ( DISPOSING OF THE WI iIT PETITIONS . WI] HOUT COSTS d ia6'