1. Smt. Darisha Nagamani v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 Order or direction more particuiarly one in nature of Writ of tVlandahus declaring the action of the Respondents'in a-cquiring the Plot bearing No.85 in Survey No. 12, admeasuring 177 Square Yards, situated at Meerpet Village, Balapur Mandal, Rangareddy District, Without any notice and without following the due procedure as contemplated under law as arbitrary, illegal, col6rable exercise and misuse of powers as contemplated under law and same is violating Article 21 and Article 300-A of Constitution of lndia apart from violating Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondents to allot alternative land equivalent to the Petitioners land bearing Plot No. 85 or else to pay compensation by following the procedure contemplated under Land Acquisation Act, 2013 lA NO: 1 OF 2019 :: 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 Respondents to allot the alternate land equivalent to the Petitioners land bearing Plot No. 85 or else to pay compensation by following the due procedure contemplated under Land Acquisation Act, 2013 pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. SUNITHA REP SRI A. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counselfor the Respondent No.2&4: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 : SRI S. RAVINDER REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY The Court made the following: ORDER I i . : HON'BLE SRI JTISTICE LAXIUI NARAYANA ALISHE]ITY ORDER: . This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents in acquiring plot bearing No.g5 in Sy.No.l2 admeasuring 177 sq'yrds, situated at Meerpet vilrage, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as .subject plot)' without any notice and without forowing due process, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 2 r and 3oo_A of Constitution of India and for consequential relief. 2' Heard' Ms'Sunitha, rearned counser representing sri A'Purushotham Reddy, rearned counser for the petitioners on record' sri s'Ravinder Reddy, rearned shnding counser for respondent No.3 and Iearned Assistant Government preader for Revenue. 3' Learned counser for the petitioners wourd submit that petitioners are the joint owners and peaceful possessors of the subject prot, having acquired the same under registered sare deed No.6756 of 1991, dated 06.0T.Igg1; that respondent No.3_ Municiparity has acquired the subject plot for the purpose of buritrl oground and constructed a compound wa, without 2 \ foltowing due procedure as contemplated under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition' Rehabilitation and Rescttlement Act' 2013 (for short 'RFCTLARR Rct, 2013); that petitioners have made several representations dated 21.O1' 216, 29'O7'2016' 27'O5'2O17' 2r'06'2018 and 06.09.2019 to respondent No'3 with a request to allot altemate plot or to pay compensation as per the RFCTLARR Act' 2O13' However, respondents neither allotted plot nor paid Aggrieved bY the same' Present comPensation to the Petitioners' writ Petition is filed'

4. Learned Counsel for petitioners further submitted that theStatecanacquireanyprivateproperty/landforpublic purpose by duly following the procedure and paying just compensation' However' in the present case' in clear violation of settled law, the respondent No'3 has'constructed a compound wall and the petitioner's land is included in the land being used for burial ground without paying compensation and no steps have been taken by respondents despite several representations and hence, prayed to allow this writ petition and direct the respondentstoallotalternateplotorpaycompensation. I 3

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 by referring to the counter would submit that respondent No.3 constructed a compound wall in the grave yard and in view of non-availability of the boundaries, the subject plot of the petitioners could not be identified and in fact, there is no access to the subject plot. He further submitted that there is no objection or protest from the petitioners at the time of constrrrction of compound wall and they have also not objected for graves in the subject plot, therefore, the acquisition of subject plot does not arise. He also submitted that respondent No.3 is not the proper authority to decide acquisition of plot on payment of compensation. He further submitted that petitioners could not locate the subject plot and in fact, graves are existing in the entire land within the compound wall and therefore, petitioners are not entitled for allotment of alternate land or for compensation and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. \

6. Perusal of the record discloses that petitioners are the owners of subject plot having acquired the same through registered sale deed No.6756 of 1991, dated 06.07.1991. It is evident that the subject plot is the part of land which is being used as burial ground by the respondent No.3 and no compensation has been paid. Right to propert5r is a 4 constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and no person shall be deprived of property without payment of just compensation. State is empowered to acquire any land/property for public purpose in accordance with law provided just and fair compensation is paid to the owner. However, in the present case, no such steps have been taken and no compensation has been paid to the petitioners.

7. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 06.09.2019 and to initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of subject plot of the petitioners by duly following procedure as contemplated under RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Respondents shall complete the entire exercise within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to Miscellaneous petitions pending, if afly, shall stand closed. To, /TRUE COPY// PONNA KRISHNA RE OFFICER T.S.,HYderabad. :1. The Principal Secretary, MunicipalAdministration Department Secretariat' 2. iil'biltri"t boltector, Ranga Reddy District' Telangana -3. iE commlssid;;' M;pEi uunicipalitv' Ranga Reddy State. 4. TheT Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telanagana State R'GHo?li rfi-neoov. Advocate toPUCl State. District, Telangana

6.TwoCCstoGPFoRMUNIoIPAIADMINIS.TRATIoNANbURBAN ',;B:vab"rt=tr',1tr#eutnfliaatti]iqilfl uffi.lt1lf {i{l''qi' 8. Two ccs to Gp EoiHinEN0t'"HIs"h io-rrtioi the state of reransana, at ' Hvderabad [OUT] 9. Two CD CoPies / AB M BS HIGH COURT DATED i1911112025 \ \ ORDER WP.No.23210 of 2019 {-t-45' r:'(_ .,,r. .i\. Y ;i ,t I iru tffn i -l- ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITI1OUT COSTS i : i I I ! : ':a