1. Neelam chennaiah v. 1. The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.KRISHNA KISHORE' REP' FOR SRI L.V.S.NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 5: SRI K'TARUN, AGP FOR REVENUE' REP. FOR ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.17 172 of20L6 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the fotlowing relief: " ... lo issue a Writ Order or direclion nore parlia arly one in lhe nature of Writ of Mandamr.s to declare the action of the resytndents 2 to 5 in laking steps for payment of compensation/Ex-gratia to the 6th respondent lor the land to on exlenl ol Acrcs 1.20 gunbs in Survey No.94 in Kurmidda villagc, Yacharan Mandal ,Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary and violative o,[ Article l4 of he Constirulion of India and contrary to tlrc provisions of the A-P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977 and Rules made there under and consequently direct the respondenls I lo 5 to Pay contpcnsalion to the ptitioiers along wirh the 6th respondenr for the land to an extent of Acres 1.20 gunlas in Sun'ey No.94 in Kurmidda village' Yacharam Mandal ,Ranga Reddy District.. "

2. Heard Sri K.Krishna Kishore, learned counsel representing Sri L.V.S.Nagaraju, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.Tarun, leaned Assistant Govemment Pleader, attached to the office of the learned Advocate General, for respondent Nos. I to 5 and Mr.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, leamed counsel for respondent No.6.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have submitted representation belore respondent No.4 on 27 .O1.2016, t requesting him to stop payment of compensation in f'avour of respondent No.6 and also to pay compensation in respect ol their share or refer the dispute to the conpetent Court. Inspite of the same, respondent No.4 has not taken any steps, hence, the petitioners have approached this Court 2 and filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 vehemently contended that the petitioners are not having any semblance of nght over the subject pioperty and the subject property belongs to respondent No.6 and her name was recorded in the revenue records, basing upon the enjoyment survey conducted by the competent authority and respondent No.4 already paid compensation in favour of respondent No.6, hence, the petil.ioners are not entitled for any relief much less than the reliel sought in this Writ Petition. Basing upon the instructions furnished by respondent No.6, he submitted that during pendency of writ petition, petitioner No. I died and the successors of deceased petitioner No. I are not brought on record, hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, insolar as petitioner No.l is concerned, on the ground of abaternent. He turther submitted that the petitioners are claiming cornpensation, especially in respect of Sy.No.94, in Kurmidda Viltage, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, whereas petitioners submitted represerrtation before respondent No.4, dated 27.01.2016, in respect of Sy.No.92 or 9211152 or 92/152. \ ( I I : 3

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submittedthattherespondentauthoritieshavealreadydisbursedthe compensation in favour of respondent No'6, basing upon the revenue records and the petitioners have to approach the competent Court'

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record' it reveals that petitionem are requesting the respondent authorities not to pay compensation/ex-gratia in favor of respondent No'6 in Sy'No'94 and petitioners are claiming right over the subject property as ancestors of theoriginalowner.Therecordfurtherdisclosesthatthepetitionersand respondent No.6 are family members' However' basing upon the instructions furnished by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, respondent authorities have already disbursed the compensation in favour ofrespondent No.6, basing upon the revenue records' In view of the above, this court is not inclined to grant any relief

7. as sought by the petitiooers in this writ petition' Accordingly' the writ petitionisdismissed.However,petitionersaregrantedlibertytowork out their remedies as available under law, if so they are aggrieved. No \ 4 order as to costs. I To, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. JAYASREE TANT REGISTRAR Sl,ls \ secrroru oFFtcER

1. One CC to SRI L.V.S.NAGARAJU, Advocate [OpU 2. One CC to SRI CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CCs to ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUl

5. Two CD Copies BSR GJP cH( HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 ORDER WP.No.17172 of 2016 .z;- :' ...t' /" / .r9 '/(t 27I{AY M .I t DS.sr,A.t C DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 0CU.P'.\# ?0v