The 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 pass an order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the return of application of the petitioners vide Sr. No. 4717t2024 dated 06.08-2024, in LAOP No. 56/2021 on the fire of rhe Land Acquisition. Rehabilitation 8r, Resettlement Authority, for the State of relangana. Hyderabad seeking to restore the LAop, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice- and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to restore the LAop No. 56/2021 and adjudicate the same on merits in the interest of justice. " 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 2nd respondt>nt to restore the LAOP No. 56/2021 and adjudicate the same on merits in the interest of justice. t I Gounsel for the Petitioners: SRI P.RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE t** Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI SOMU SRINIVAS REDDY, AGP , I FOR LAND ACQUTSITION : t t ; t a The Gourt made the following: ORDER { I I 1 I { I Ift. 7 i. i'.", ' tr*i;1.. f,*hi.r": t- l_i :r.? -) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR ot'D€(: Writ No. of 2O2 , This writ petition is filed seeking the following pt'ayer: "...d.eclqring tLrc return of application of tlw petitioruers uide Sr-No-4777/ 2024 dated 06.08.2024 in LAOP.No.56/2021 on ttrc file of Ttrc Lond. Acquisition Retnbilitation and Resettlement Authoritg fo, the State of Telangana, Hyd"erabad seeking to restore the LAOP as illegal, arbitrary and agairust the principles of nafitral justice and consequentlg direct the 2nd respondertt to restore the LAOP.No.56/2027 and adjudicate the sqme on merits..."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Somu Srinivas Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition) appearing on behalf of respondents.

3. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are brothers and petitioner No.3 is their sister who have common interest in the writ petition. The facts of the case in brief as stated are that petitioners claims to be owners of agricultural lands ad.measuring about Ac.B-26 gts., at Sy.No.4S 4 I I I 5, at 2 're Burgampahad v,rage and Mandar, Bhadradri Kothagudem said lands have been acquired for the purpose of Seeth. Rama Lift Irrigation project and award proceedings were lssued on Lg.O6.2OtB. The petitioners were paid compensation of Rs.7,50, OOO /_ per acre by the Land Acquisition officer. Being dissatisfied with the said comperlsation, petitioners made representation to responrlent No.3 on 09.o7 .2018 seeking to enhance compensation. On the said representation, respondent No'3 relerred the matter to respondent No.2 under section 64 rearr with section 76 and 77Q) of Right to Fair comper:'sation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Respondent No'2 has taken up the case on record and numbered as LAOp.Nc,.56 of 2021 and notices were sent to the petitioners for appearance and for filing r,vritten statement. 4' 1t'he petitioners engaged a counser but later due to €unong the petitioners could not brief the counser with regard to the details of the rands. It is submittecr that during the covlD-1g period, the petitioners were badiy aJfected and it was informed that during that time, there wal no presiding officer as such the matter got _j miscomrrrunication a -) closed by respondent No.2/authority on 24.O4.2023. However, the petitioners could not report the closure of the case and got delayed. Thereafter, petitionerS filed restoration petition, but the said petition was returned.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this court to petition filed under order IX Rule 9 of code of civil Procedure which is fited to set aside the order in LAOP.No.56 of 2021 which was dismissed for default on

24.04.2023 and restore the case for hearing on merits. Learned counsel also draws attention of this Court to petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 44O days in filing the petition to set aside the order of dismissal. Learned counsel submits that both the above petitions are returned on the question of maintainability. Questioning the sarne, the present writ petition is filed.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the \ petitioners could not pursue the matter and unless the LAOP is restored the petitioners could not fetch the higher value of the lands which were acquired and accordingly prayed this Court to restore the said LAOP. 4 7 - I-earned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition) has fired a copy of instructions issued by respondent No.3. However, in the said instructions; except reiterating the facts as stated in the u,rit affidavit, there was no specific mention with regard to speaking orders. B' Having regard to the submissions made by rearned counsel on either side and on perusal of the docket order, this cortrt deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider both the pefitions ub., delay condone petition and restoration petition filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of three (3) weeks from the date cf receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance to law. Mis,:ellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed' However, there shall be no order as to costs. SD/. //TRUE COPYII To 1 2

3. 4 5.

6. 7 PSK. GJP \ \ HIGH COURT ,:, i ,- DATED:0110812025 t',' i': i. ,1 : I. .i k o RDER ]r. 1 WP.No.22l645 of 2025 'r . -.r.{.. . :(..ra'*Irt : il r}-rt*.i i d#tii r ,jiili'.l i,*it . . rii'-i .. '-^-r1 f.' 'ii;, ; , ! {'9 1{ j.'1,#i J - i.i , '. ;:rtlii ; .ril: -'- --: .i!.; ' i :: r;i':: r.1!1iri I STA ?1 JAt{ 202$ 6) a i. '* 3 ( { DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS i-' 1 p{ /\\'o $i.i.r :.,i ll-:i ' #l,#,*,;,