1. Janagama Rajeshwari v. '1. The State of Telangana

n"..ttt"r"nt Act, 2013 and consequenfly to direct the respondents to consider " iiii.oi''zoz| 'nq 19 conduct enquiry thereby oetitioners representation conducting a Survey to' unas"iffilffit"o in sv No'438 of Sundilla Village IAN O:1 OF 2024 petition under section 151 cpc praying that,in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppoli ;i ih; ;[i'-oin ih" Hign court mav be pleased to consider representation alii'bi'ioii'gi'"n uv the petitioners to respondents' p"iJi"g oiip".al of the present Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI' MOHD BASEER RIYAZ Counsel for the Respondent Nos'1'3&4: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent NO'2: GP FOR ROADS AND BUILDINGS Counsel for the Respondent Nos'5&6 SRI P' SRI HARSHA REDDY SC FOR SCCL The Court made the following: ORDER 1 l I I I I ! I '1 i ! v ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition N 22505 of 2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.l, 3 and 4, learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings appearing for respondent No.2, and Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6, and perused the record.

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the 1st petitioner was issued with patta certificate dt.1B.03.1993 granting assignment patta in respect of land admeasuring Acs.3.00 guntas in Sy.No.43g and similarly, the 2nd petitioner was issued with patta certificate dt.18.03.1997 to an extent of Acs.3.00 guntas in Sy.No.43B situated at Sundilla Village of Ramagiri Mandal, Peddapalli District; that the respondents-authorities are seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands, claiming the same are required for respondent Nos.s and 6, without conducting proper enquiry and payment of compensation; and that the respondents- authorities are rrct considering the representation of the petitioners dt.24.04.m24 for conducting enquiry and payment of compensation in respect of the lands acquired.

3. Petitioners further contend that on the respondents-authorihes uMertaking survey at the time of acquisition in the year 2002, the name 2 of the 2tu petitioner was shown in the list prepared by them, and thus, the petitioners are to be considered as being in possession of the subject land and are thus entitled for R&R benefits in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.2.26 guntas acquired for the purpose of laying road under RGOC-V project.

4. Separate counter affidavits on behalf of respondent No.4 and respondent Nos.5 and 6 are filed.

5. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 by drawing the attention of the Court to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4 would contend that though the petitioners claim to have been issued with patta certificates in the year 1993 and 1997, no such patta certificates were issued in respect of land in Sy.No.43B of Sundilla Village, and the land to an extent of Acs.7.36 guntas in the said survey number continues to be a water body/tank which is in existence as of date. Learned Government Pleader further contended that no part of the land in the aforesaid survey number was converted to ayan.

6. By the counter-affidavit, it is further contended that the entire extent of land in Sy.No.438 has been placed in the prohibitory iist of properties urnder Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and as such, the claim of' the petitioners for payment of compensation to an extent of Ac$.2.36 guntas of land as being their assignment patta land does not arise and needs no consideration. I I /, .$J 3

7. Learned Crovernrnent phader further submiE that the petitioners, if at all claim to be in possessiofl or enjoyment of tfre subject hnd, the sarne is by way of encroachrnent and as such, ttrey cannot claim any benefits.

8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6 would submit that the land to an extent of Acs.119.14 guntas was requisitioned by the said respondents by submitting letter dt.12.02.1989, and on the same being haMed over to it by respondent Nos.l to 4, the same is shown as in possession of respondent Nos.5 and 6.

9. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that even the revenue records, records the subject land to be the Government land and in possession of respondent Nos.s and 6 and as such, the petitioners cannot claim any valid or legal right over the subject land on the basis oF the patta certificates of the years 1993 and t997.

10. I have taken note ofthe respective contentions urged.

11. Though the petitioners claim to have been issued with pafta ceftificates in the year 1993 and 1997 for an extent of Acs.3.O0 each, no material is placed before this Court to show that their names having been recorded in the revenue records on being issued with the aforesaid assignrnent pattas or the said extent of land being mutated in their name in the reveoue records for over 30 years, nor they were being issued with pattadar passbooks confirming the tifle to the subject land. 4

72. Further, having regard to the claim of respondent Nos'l to 4 by their counter-affidavit that the land in Sy.No.438 to an extent of Acs'7'36 guntas is a water body/tank and no patta cedificates having been granted in respect of the subject land, the genuineness of the rlaim of the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid patta certificates, cannot be accepted, more particularly, when no plausible explanation is forthcoming from them as to their not taking any steps to get their names mutated in the revenue records upon being issued with the aforesaid assignment pattas for them to undertake agricultural operations thereirr as noted in the aforesaid assiqnment Pattas.

13. Though the 2nd petitioner claims of his name being shown in the list prepared by the respondents-authorities while undertaking survey at the time of ac(luisition in the year 2002, it is to be noted that the said list being relie(l upon by the 2M petitioner is the list of encroachers in SCCL mining lease land of Sundilla Village finalized during the year 2018' Thus, the claim {)F the petitioners of the respondents-authorities having noted them to br: in possession of the subject land and are entitled for being conferred r,ryith the benefits, either of compensation or for R&R benefit by considerinq their representation dt.24.04.2024, in the considered view of this Court, would not be a valid claim, as their names has been duly recorded as an encroachers to the subject land' t; I I , ;i .l .t :l ) 1 5

14. Further, it is also to be noted that the petitioners claim of being entitled to be considered for extending the R&R ben€Rt, it is to be not€d that if the said claim of the petitioners is accepted, the same woulcl be giving a premium to the irregality whkh cannot be the intention of ttre Legislature as has been obsened by the Hon.ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Haryana v,/s. Sushid.

15. For the aforernentioned reasons, since, the petitiorErs hare failed to establish their right and interest over the subject rand in sy.r{o.43g of sundilla village, being claimed by them in order to receive compensation or any other benefit, either under the Land Acquisition Act, 1g94 or under G.O.Ms.No.68 dt.08.04.2005 or under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition as filed is devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed.

16. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

77. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending ",;;il;a stand closed. 6 l"[:o ra ro' q'-oa "b.:o>-dF in this writ petition shall SD/.A ASS . SRINIVASAREDDY NT REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// s CTTON OFFICER To, '1. One CC to SRl. MOHD BASEER RIYAZAdvocate [OPUCI 2. One CC to SRI HARSHA REDDY SC FOR SCCL [OPUCI 3.TwoCCstoGPFoRLANDACoUlSlTloN'HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana. [OUT] 4 5 KKS BS Tffi ff ; i'",:i,i:"5%1 is3!f Two CD CoPies o u ild i ng s' H $ h co urt fo r the state of I HIGH COURT DATED:0810112025 k q J o i.) .- --.': " C,:. 2 4 FIB ;1025 t rg=gpo1 q.r'!!,1 i:.--:_;l t v I ./ ORDER WP.No.22505 of 2024 I LI I I I ! I I t ! ! I ! i i I i ! DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ t-t {