IMPORTANT POINT
The right to compensation for land taken by the state is upheld, emphasizing adherence to legal procedures and principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

Surepalli Nanda, J.

Heard Mr.Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Mr. K.Siddharth Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

PRAYER:

2. The petitioners approached the court seeking prayer as under:

“…to issue Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not settling the claim of the petitioners for payment of compensation as per the prevailing market value as per the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 and benefits thereunder or hand over the vacant possession of the land measuring 7863.38 square meters equivalent to 9405.22 square yards in Sy.No.59/1/2 and 59/3/1 situated at S.R.Nagar, Yousfuguda, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad to the petitioners pursuant to the proceedings of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling vide Proceedings No.E2/107 to 112/76 dt.16-02-2006 by considering their representations 15.06.2007, 11.09.2007 and 29.07.2008, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential order directing the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioners for the above said land with interest and damages as per the prevailing market value as per the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 and benefits thereunder in alternative or hand over the vacant possession of the land measuring 7863.38 square meters equivalent to 9405.22 square yards in Sy.No.59/1/2 and 59/3/1 situated at S.R.Nagar, Yousfuguda, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad and pass such order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.”

3. PERUSED THE RECORD:

A) The interim order of this Court dated 19.04.2023 passed in the present writ petition No.9084 of 2009, reads as under:

“The short issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the petitioners are entitled for restoration of possession in respect of the land which is declared as retainable land in the urban land ceiling proceedings that were concluded on remand.

The facts of the case are that originally the petitioners are declared as having surplus land to an extent of 6,397.79 sq. meters and possession of the said extent of land is also stated to have been taken over by the State by conducting a panchanama in the year 1985. However, the said proceedings were reversed by the appellate authority and on remand, the petitioners were found to have been holding land only to an extent of 2,060 sq. meters in excess and land to an extent of 4,337.79 sq. meters which was earlier declared as surplus land is now declared as the retainable land of the petitioners.

As already noted above the entire extent of 6,397.79 sq. meters was taken over by conducting panchanama by the respondent State. Now, the petitioners are seeking either restoration of possession over the land to an extent of 4,337.79 sq. meters to them or for payment of compensation, in the alternative.

In the circumstances, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to file an additional counter affidavit explaining the status of the said extent of 4,337.79 sq. meters and also about the possession of the said extent of land as on date by the next date of hearing.”

B) The operative portion of the order of this Court dated 27.11.2002 passed in W.P.No.23277/2002, reads as under:

“The particulars relating to the extents of land of the petitioners acquired, point of time and terms and conditions are not evident from the record placed before this court. However from a reading of the notice Dt:16.5.2002 issued by the fourth respondent it is evident that petitioners were required to submit documents in support of their title. It is submitted that the petitioners have complied with the same. That being the situation, if the lands of the petitioners had been taken over by the respondents, the petitioners ar