1 . Veldi Prasad Rao @ Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated jn the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to rssue a writ, crder or direction more particularly one in the nature of a ...RESPONDENTS Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent rr, 6 in not deciding the claim statements frled by the petitioners in LAOP.no B I 2019 on the file of respondent no.6 and not depositing the compensation a Ic unt of Rs.10,95,000/- I per acre on par with other land losers, though submitte( rossession certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Sathupalli N/andal and oth€. relevant documents establrshing clear title and with no rival claimants as r't,gal. arbitrary and in violation to Art 14 21 and 3004 of Constitution and co-s,:quently to direct the Respondent no.6 t,t disburse/deposlt the compensation a r,c unt of Rs.10,95,000/ per acre on par with other land Iosers duly deciding the :re rnr statement filed by the petitioners as expeditrously as possible with interest @).. I ot.o per annum. lA NO: 't OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r rr:umstances stated in the affidavit frled ir support of the petition, the High Co r may be pleased to consider the representation dt.25 '10.2024 submitted t r the Dist Collector Khammam Dist., pendrng drsposal of the above Writ Petitio r. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ABDUL AZAM KHAN Counsel for the Respondents No.1, 3 to 5: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P. SRIHARSHA REDDY, S.C. FOR SINGARENI COI-I, IERIES Counsel for the Respondent No.6: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR ORDER: W.P. No.26489 of 2O2S Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the thrcshold.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.6, District Court, represenLed by its presiding Officer, Khammam District, in not deciding the claim statements filed by the petitioners in LAOP. No.8 of 2Ol9 on the file of the respondent No.6 and not depositing the compensation amount of Rs.l0,95,0OO/- per acre on par u'ith other land losers, though subrnitted posscssion ccrtificate issucd by the Tahsildar, Sathupalli Mandal _ and other relevant documcnts establishing clear title and with no rival claimants, filed the present writ petition with a consequential prayer to direct the respondent No.6 to disburse/ deposit the compensation amount ol Rs. 10,95,000/- per acre on par with other land losers duly deciding the claim statement hled by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible with interest @ l8o/o per annum.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the pe titioncrs No.1 to 5 are the owners of land to an extent of Acs.8.07 gts., 2.2O gts., 2.233/+ gLs.,l.22 gts., 1.23 gts., in Sy.No.119, respectively, situated at Kommepalli village, Sathupalli Mandal, Khammam District (hereinafter referred to as ,the subject property) t \ ) and are claimants irr LAOp. No.g of 20 19. It is the rasc that as per the requisition ol SCCL to acquire the land to an ext :rrt or Acs.6g0.07 gts., for thc ptrrpose of .lVR OC II rnining in thr: .iilage limits ol Kommepalli, Sathupally N4andal in thc year 2OO9, : .l.tification was issued under thc provisions of the Land Acqui;ir on Act, 1894. Subsequently, thc Special Depr-rty Collector had pe r;s:tl the General Award under Section 11 calculating Rs.3,4t3 ! 35/ towards compensation per acre. As the said amount was nol z,cccpted by the ryoths, the Lancl Acquisition officer rcferred thc matt.: to the District Court, Khammarn and thc samc was numbercd as l,.Op. No.619 of 2ol4 for Komepallv v lage and deposited certain € r.1 )unts into the saic! Court. After scvcral consensus, compensation c,, lts. 10,95,000/_ per acrc was agrcr:d and awards were passecl _ by l e Lok Adalat. Despite the said arrvards, compensation was not dislrursed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge on the ground l,at the awards did not contain the signatures of all the rival claimanl:; Aggrieved by the same, the larmers 1llcd W.p. No.13995 of 2018 ard this Court disposed of the s.id writ pctition on 30.04.2o1g dire<: i:rg the District Judge, Khammam to disburse amounts in terms of l_ r,.:adalat au,ard along with interest accrued i.e. lgVo. it is further suL,rn,t1.ed that the said LAOP. No.619 of 2Ol4 pertaining to Kommepalll .,illage on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, f .L ammam was sub-divided, based on the survey numbers and thr Sy.No. 119 of Kammepalli village became part of LAOp. No.g of .rl l(), which is subject matter in thc prescnt writ pe tition. It is further .;r lbmitted that J there are no rival claimants against the petitioners and all the petitioners have l,ed their claim statement in the r,Aop. No.g of 2019 way back in the year 2019 however, is still pending adjudication. He nce, the petitioners Iiled the present writ petition. 4

02.O9.2025, based on which, Acquisition has placed a On the other hand, the learned Government pleader for Land copy of written instructions dated it is submitted that the then Special Deputy Collector (LA), Ipl & Railways, Khammam deposited the entire award amount including interest of Rs. lg,B4,3 3,666_56/_ before the Principal District Judge, Khammam vide Cheque No.O622 18, dated 23.O8.2O14 under Secrion 3l(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the batch case was numbered as LAOp. No.6I9 of 2014. Later, the Principal District Judge, Khammam sub_divided based on survey numbers for instance lands acquired in Sy.No. l 19 and numbered as LAOP. No.B of 2019 and the writ petitioners are covered in LAOp. No.B of 2019. Further, the principal District Judge, Khammam transferred the case file including land compensation pertaining to LAOp. No.g of 2O19 on 29.O7.2021 to the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sathupalli and the LAOp No.S of 2079 which is under adjudication.

5. At this juncture, the learned counser for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are five in number and there are no rival claims against the respective extents of the subject land and therefore, they may be permitted to withdraw the amounts corresponding to their extents of 1and. l t { 4

6. in that view of the matter, recording the subn;issions made by the learned counsel on either side, this ,,vri t petiti: r is disposed of directing the respondent No.6 to consider the craims 11 the petitioners herein in LAOp. No.B of 2Ol9 and pass apllr.r,priate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks. ir om the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7 Accordingl-v, this writ pctition is disposecr of. --ii:re shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closecl. SD/.K. SI]EE RAMA MURTHY CIEPUTY REGISTRAR a SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPYII IIF^-P_11"ip{ Secretary.^Revenue _Deparlment (Lanc \cquisition), State of reran-g-ana Secretariat Buildings. BRKR Bhavan. l_ f leribad, Telangana_ 500063 The ltilanaging Director. singareni coilieries co. Ltd c orporate office, Red Hills, Hyderabad The District Collector, Khammam District, Telangana. The Revenue Divisionar officer (LA)(RDo), Khammanr [ristrict, Terangana. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Sathupally I\Iandal Khammam District, Telangana. The Presiding Officer, District Court, Khammam District One CC to SRI ABDUL AZATM KHAN, Advocate [OpUo Lw9 CCs to GP for Land Acqursition, High Court for th,l S,tate of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] one cc to SRI P SRTHARSHA REDDY, s.c. for Singzr e ri colieries [opuc] To 1 2 3 4 6 7 B o

10. Two CD Copies (rr MP BS \ t / I HIGH COURT DA-t-ED:03109t2025 " '; .... L) " 1, [[f tn]r ORDER WP.No.116489 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WIiIT PETITION WITI{OUT COSTS f*(