The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI CH.RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: SRI S.RAHUL REDDY, SPL. GP FOR Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI M.SRIKANTH REDDY, SC FOR TGIIC REVENUE The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHA'I"'ACHARYA THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEII KUMAR AND WRIT APPEAL No.L247 OF 2025 i',Ir. Ch ltavl KLrmar, learned.olLnsel at)ptrarrne lor'the appellant Xlr. S RilhLll Reddl Ihe learned Special al,)vrrnmerlL Pleader appearrrg lL,r resporrderl Nos.l to 1 Mr. i!1 Sr rkarl th Rcdd\ , thc i,'ir rlcd Stan d rn g Coun scl appcaring for resp r ]crlt No5 Telangala Stare Industrial Inirastr-ucrurc (lorpor'ahon iT(illC). JUDGMENT: {P,rr Horl ble Jt-rstLcc l\loushumi Bhattactar i ) i. 'l'he Writ Appeal ariscs ouL of an order cr t ;d 03.07.2O25 in W.P.No.18635 ol 2O25 passecl by a learned : ngle .Judge of this Court rlisnrssing the Writ Petition filed b,' the appellant be lorc us

2. In tlLc Writ Petitior-i, the appellant souglr lor award of compensation for thc acquisltion of thc subject 1r-: ,d to an extent of Ac.3.OO gts in Sr'. No.252126 of IJakeempet ' il1age, Dudyal Manclal of Vikarabacl District, by the State, at rar rvith other similarly situ:rtecl assignment p.rtta holders. Th: appellant also contended that the S tate- respondents could tr( t denude the appellant ol his rights in respec't of the subject . rnd, despite a representation made by the appellant to the re ; rondent No.2/ District CollccLor and the respondent No.3/Man<tr I Tallsildar on

03.46.2025. 2

3. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge d ismisscd the Writ petition .holding that the appellant rvas unablc to produce any documentary evidence showing the rssuancc of pattadar pass book under Thc Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 nor under The Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar pass Books Act,2O2O. The lean'red Singlc Judge also found that the appellant was not entrtled to any relicf since thc names of the thrrd parties who aliegedly purchased the said land under Sadabainama were reflccted in Lhe Revcnue Records for over hfteen years.

4. Learncd counsel appearing for the appellant/v,,rit petitioner submits that thc learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petrtion on the second day without giving any opportunity to the appellan t to bring the relevant documents on record for coun[ering the allegations made by the respondents. Counsel submits that according to the finding of the learned Single Judge, thc appellant had alienated the land in favour of third parties r.vhose names were reflecled in the Revenue Records. Thc appellant had actually not alienated the subject land or interfered with it in favour of any such third party. Counsel submits that the appellant's name ceased to be reflected in the \ 3 Revenue Recorcls lront 2O).4 onwards. It is also r ubmitted that the finding of the lcamed Single .Iudge with r: lpect to third parties purchasrng the appellant's land was bas,:r solely on the representation made b1.the learned Additional ArI ocate General appearing or-r behalf of lhe State- res ponden ts-

5. The learned Special Government Pleader trr re aring lor the State respondents submits that the appellant r as unable to rebut the finding of the learned Single.Iudge thl the appellant had alienatcd thc lancl in favour of third partl(: and that thc State has paid the compensatior r to thc third pa r 1- purchasers. It is also submiltecl that thc appcllant had z 1 proached the Court much bevond the time hmit as provideci rnder Sec Lion 15 (l ) of The Right to F air Compcnsation and 1 r rnsparcncy in Land Acquisition, Rchabrlitation and Resettlcrr c rt Act, 20 13, u,hich provides that any pcrson interested in i r -r. land which has been notified, as being required or likely to b: required lor a public purpose, may wrthin for 60 days' fro r the date .of publication ol the prcliminary notification.

6. We have heard the lcarncd counsel for th appellant as well as the learned Special Ciovernment Plez r er for State Respondents / 4

7. The sum and substance in the contentioit of learnecl coLrnsel lor thc appcllant is that thc finding of the learned Single .ludge, spccifically, that the appellant alienated rhe land in favour of third party was solely orr the basis of submissions made by the learned Additronal Aclvocate General ancl that the petitioner u,as not givcn any opportunity Lo counter the said fincling by submitting relevant documents on record. If the alienaLion of the lancl by tire appellant in favour of third parties is indeed doubtful, then the appellant,s entire case becomes a matter u,hich should have been determined in the light of further documents to be hled b1, the appellant herein. The fact that the name of the appellar-rt ccased to bc reflected in thc pattadar pass books sincc 20 14 is also a question u,hich should have been gone into after pcrusing all documents brought by the parties and subsequent to argumcnts being put forth. 8. Accordingly, lve find thal the appellant had a case which calls for consideration in detail, subject to the docr.rments produced by the appellant ar-rd tl're State respondents which could not be placed before the learned Single Judge.

9. W.A.No. 1247 ol 2025 is accordingly allowed by setting aside the impugned orde r dated O3.O7 .2025. The appellant ) ) r,:.,<::_- :4.!"1frP- @;- J shall be ar libe rLy to make a lresh rcprese ntL ,ton before the resl)ondcnt Nos.2 and 3 and thc same shall i: : riisposed of by the respondcnt Nos.2 and 3/Distncl Colli:rr,. r and Mandal Tahsilclar s.i[htn four r.veeks from the date c,f erceipL of such represent:rtion maclc by the appcllant. To //TRUE COPY' SD/-K,SAILESHI JOINT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER

1. Principal Secretary, Revenue Depanment,(L.A. and J.A )r.B.R. Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telanoana 2. D_istrict Collector, Vikarabad District, Vikarabad, Te"lang: ra 50200.1 3 lMan{al Tahsildar, Dudyal l\.ilandal, Dudyal, Vikarabad "t 4. Sub-Collector cum LAO, Thandur, Vikaiabad District. 5 -TJtg yro gnd M.D, Telangana State lndustrial, Infrastnr.;t rre Corporation ^ (TGIICI Palghrqma Bh?y9.1, Fateh. Maidan Road, Bas I erbagn, ffyOeraOaO 6. One CC to SRI CH.RAV| KUMAR, Aclvocate IOPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court ior the'St:t : of Telangana, at 8. One CC to SRI S.RAHUL REDDY, SpL. cp tOpUCl 9 One CC to SRI IV.SREKANTH REDDY, SC FOR TGilC | )pUCl 10 Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] i .trict I I PSK I-S HIGH COURT DATED:1211112025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1247 of 2025 o i l (. L.r i ^St *+* t i \..' t': IH+..+r. !i '.t ':-) LL F: ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS ,)" r'\hhr rl W