SRI v. QALAIAH REPRESENTING FOE SRI vs MALLIK Qgqnsel for the

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia pray['s that in the clrcumstances stated in tne affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be *r,t, orJ"t .or Oirection hore particqlarly one ln lhe nature of pleased to lssue lviit of Mandamus oectaring the inaction of the respondent authorities with i"grrJ to payment of full com"p,ensation^in respect oJ_schedule property of the writ p-"iiti*"r'in'plot No.1g2 in'Sy No.2g6 in an extent of 36 X 36 feet which is equivalenttol44sqyards,situatedatArgulvillage'JakranpallyMandal. Nizamabad distrrct by,n,t,iting land acquisition proceedings undqr relevant law inJ i" o""rir" tne inaction is being illg-g-a]' .arbitrary and violative .of rights iuurrrt""a'-under Article 14. 2l ind Sb0-A anO cons.eqrJently direct. the lespondents hereln to pay tult compensation as per law laid down in Land i",iir.iii"" Officer-cum-nJvenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy oi.iri"iV, lrilekata pandulno ott"r. reported in AIR 2004 AP 250 affirmed by in"'H"^or. epl* cou.t in crvit Appeat Noi.glll-lzltz012 and batch dt-4.8.2014. LA. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 823 1 0F 20't6t Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Couft maY be pleaged direct the respondents herein to pay full compensation to the writ petitioner in respect of schedule property in Plot No.192 in Sy.No. 286 in an extent of 36 X 36 feet which is equivalent to 144 sq. yards situated at Argul yillage, Jakranpally Mandal, Nizamabad district as per law laid down in Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenqe Divisional Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District ys. Mekala^ Pandu and others reported rn AIR 2004 AP 250 affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9317-32112012 and batch dt 4.8.20'14 pending CiSposal of the p5evs {vrit petition. Cqunsel for the Petitioner: SRI v. QALAIAH REPRESENTING FOE SRI V. MALLIK Qgqnsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI A. KRANTI KUMAR BEDDY Counsgl for the Respondent No.2: SRI S.S. VARMA (SC FOR NHAII Cognsgl for the Respondent No.3: GP FoR REVENUE The Ceurt made the followingl ORDER { a' HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENfVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6472 of2016 ORDER: This writ petition has been frled by the petitioner questioning the action of respondents in not paying the full compensation in respect of the subject property of the petitioner namely Plot No. 192 in Sy.No.286 in an extent of 36 x 36 feet which is equivalent to 144 squa_re yards situated at Argul Village, Jakranpalty Mandal, Nizamabad District and to declare the same as illegal and violation of thg provisions The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as'the Act').

2. Heard Sri V.Ga,laiah, learned counsel, representing Sri V. Mailik, learned counsel for the petitioner through video conference, Sri A.Kranthi Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.l and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing on behalf of respondent No.3. No representation on ,/ behalf of respondent No.2. 2 t earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

3. petitioner is entitled for the compensation as per the principles laid dou.n by the Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District v. Mekala Pandu and othersl. In spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner, respondent Nos.2 and 3 authorities have not taken aly steps to consider the same. 4 . I-earned Assistant Government Pleader fo. Land Acquisition submitted that the petitioner without approaching the respondent authorities and without 6ubmitting any representation/claim, straight away approached this Court and frled the present writ petition. She a,lso submitted that if the petitioner submits representation/claim, respondent Nos.2 and 3 authorities wiil consider the same in accordance with law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to submit the 1 AIR 2oo4 AP 250 3 detailed representation/claim before respondent Nos.2 and 3 authorities claiming compensation, as per the principles laid down in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Oflicer (supra) arld on such representation/claim, respondent Nos.2 ald 3 authorities may be directed to consider the same ald requested this Court to fix reasonable time.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is claiming rights over the subject property, which was acquired for thelpurpose of National Highway. However, respondent authorities have not paid the full compensation. 7 . Taking into consideratiori the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by the respective parties, this Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to submit representation/ claim before respondent Nos.2 and 3 claiming compensation in respect of the subject property within four (4) weeks from the date of I I t I 4 receipt of copy of this order. On such representation/claim, respondent authorities are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight (S) weeks therea-fter, duly taking into consideration the principles laid down in Land Acquisitlon Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Oflicer (supra).

8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shalf stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD REGISTRAR ASSISTANT 0'l;- ON OFFICER -7 The Under Secretary, Ministry of Roads, Transport and Highways Dept., The Union of lndia. New Delhi. The Project Director, National Highway Authority of lndia, P-14, 1st Floor, Plot No.35, Road No.2, Castle Hills, Near NMDC., Masab Tank, Hyderabad The Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. State of Telangana. One CC to SRI V MALLIK Advocate IOPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. One QQ to SRI S S, VARMA (SC FOR NHAI) [OPUC] One CQ to SRI A KRANTI KUMAR REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] Two QQ Copies BN B$ To, \ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7I *y HIGH COURT DATED:0610312025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.6472 of 2016 q :) o (, HE Sr4r 1 6 11 tilAB ?[25 t t O6:s p^t ct{c'.'r $( > .L) i< DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 4 5 \, \\