Land acquisition proceedings must comply with natural justice principles, requiring consideration of objections before any compensation disbursement, as mandated by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus:

(1) declaring the Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated by Respondent No.3 herein vide Notice No.B/4117/2021, dated /03/2022, under Section 21 (4) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the Act, 2013”) for the purpose of Kaleshwaram Link-II Package-II within the limits of Gopalraopet village of Ramadugu Mandal of Karimnagar Dist for enhancing existing discharging carrying capacity of FFC to 986 CUMECS (3 TMC/day) with lining modifications CD and CM works from 95,275 to 1,09,000 Kms and disbursing the amount to the unconcerned land owners as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and further contrary to the Provisions of Act, 2013 and set aside the same.

(2) declaring the inaction of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 not pursuing the Legal Notice of the Petitioners, dated 14/02/2022 and Sec 80 (1) of C.P.C., Legal Notice, dated 26/04/2022 and representation, dated 15/02/2022 by invoking Sec 33 of the Act, 2013 as illegal and arbitrary and not to disburse/release the amount to the unrelated land owners with regard to land in Sy.No.13 to an extent of Ac.0.23 guntas situated at Gopalraopet village of Ramadugu Mandal, Karimnagar Dist of Petitioner No.1 and in Sy.No. 13 to an extent of Ac.0.14 guntas situated at Gopalraopet village of Ramadugu Mandal of Karimnagar Dist of Petitioner No. 2 till pending disposal of this Writ Petition and (3) consequently direct the Respondents to provide compensation to the Petitioners by considering and disposing the legal notice, dated 26.04.2022 and representation, dated 15.02.2022 in pursuance of the Notice vide No.B/4117/2021…”

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

3. It is the case of the petitioner No.1 that his father was pattadar of land admeasuring Ac.0.33 guntas in Sy.No.13 situated at Gopalraopet Village, Ramadugu Mandal, Karimnagar District and during the life time of his father, land admeasuring Ac.0.10 guntas was acquired by the S.R.S.P. for the purpose of Flood Flow Canal. It is also case of the petitioner No.1 that after the demise of his father, he succeeded the remaining extent i.e., Ac.0.23 guntas and made a representation to mutate his name in the revenue records and issue pattadar pass book and title deed but the revenue officials issued pattadar pass book only to an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas and failed to record remaining extent of Ac.0.13 guntas. It is further case of the petitioner No.1 that for correction and rectification of missing extent, he made a representation to the respondent No.3 and when there was no action, he got issued notice dated 26.04.2022 to the respondent No.2 under Section 80(1) CPC. It is further stated by the Petitioner No.1 that he also made representations to respondent Nos.2 and 4.

4. It is the case of petitioner No.2 that his father was pattadar of land admeasuring Ac.0.34 guntas in Sy.No.13 situated at Gopalraopet Village, Ramadugu Mandal, Karimnagar District and during the life time of his father, land admeasuring Ac.0.14 guntas was acquired by the S.R.S.P. for the purpose of flood flow canal and compensation amount also paid to his father and the remaining extent i.e., Ac.0.20 guntas was succeeded by him and his brothers after the death of his father. It is also his case that after the demise of his father, they applied to mutate their names in the revenue records, but the revenue officials issued pattadar pass book only to an extent of Ac.0.08 guntas and failed to record the remaining extent. It is further case of the petitioner No.1 that for correction and rectification of missing extent, he made a repr