Back
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 445
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J.
Kanithi Adiamma and Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretary Revenue Dept, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 13595 of 2017
Decided On : 16-09-2026
Important Points
Subject
Land Acquisition - Compensation for Assignees
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Scheduled (Agency) Area - Protective laws enacted to safeguard tribal lands cannot be used to defeat the claim of the very class they were meant to protect (Para 23).
Facts of the case:
Assignees of government land in a Scheduled Area had their lands taken over in 1993 for a public purpose. Although ex-gratia was paid in 2011, the petitioners sought full compensation at market value on par with private pattadars under the Act of 2013.
Findings of Court:
The petitioners are entitled to compensation at market value on par with private pattadars, together with all statutory benefits under the Act of 2013, subject to the adjustment of ex-gratia already received.
Issues: Whether assignees of Government land taken over for a public purpose are entitled to compensation at market value on par with private pattadars over and above ex-gratia, and whether the Agency Area status or the date of takeover negates this claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that assignees of Government land are entitled to compensation on par with private pattadars. Ex-gratia is an administrative measure of relief and does not satisfy the right to compensation. Protective laws for Scheduled Areas cannot be used to deny compensation to tribals. A judicial declaration of law is declaratory and applies to previous takeovers.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER :
VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J.
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners herein, with the following prayer:
“… to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for their lands situated in Sy.No.341 of Bandarugudem village, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District, taken over for the purpose of formation of a Vocational Training Centre and Coal Dumping Yard by Singareni Collieries Company Limited, and, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ...”
2. Heard Sri R.R. Kalyan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Katta Radha Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 9 to 11, and Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Singareni Collieries Company Limited appearing for respondent Nos. 6 to 8. Perused the material on record.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. The petitioners state that they are poor agriculturists belonging to the Koya Scheduled Tribe community and that the agricultural lands in Sy.No.341 of Bandarugudem village, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District (now Bhadradri Kothagudem District), were assigned to them, or to their predecessors-in-title, by the Government, and that they have been in continuous, peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof.
4. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Manuguru (for short, ‘SCCL’), made a requisition by letter No.EM/LA/MNG/25/1025, dated 24.08.1983, addressed to the Tahsildar, Manuguru, for an extent of Ac.44-16 guntas in Sy.No.341, for the purpose of establishing a Vocational Training Centre and a Coal Dumping Yard. Pursuant to the proceedings of the District Collector, Khammam, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Manuguru, handed over possession of an extent of Ac.42-06 guntas to SCCL under a panchanama dated 30.05.1993, excluding an extent of Ac.2-10 guntas upon which a church stood.
5. Discrepancies were thereafter noticed in the Sub-Division Record in respect of the names entered against the subject lands. The petitioners approached the third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha, and the fourth respondent, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Manuguru, for correction of that record. The correction proceedings initiated in the year 2002 were contested by third parties, whereupon the petitioners instituted civil suits before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, which came to be decreed in their favour. No suit was required to be filed by petitioner Nos.6, 7 and 9, there being no contest to their title, and the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner Nos.16 and 17 had separately approached the Revenue Divisional Officer.
6. In the year 1995, W.P.No.20602 of 1995 was filed before this Court by the predecessors-in-title of some of the petitioners, seeking compensation for the lands taken over. That writ petition was disposed of on 25.10.1997, directing the petitioners therein to approach the District Collector, Khammam, for payment of compensation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993. Consequent upon G.O.Ms.No.135, dated 30.11.2004, read with G.O.Ms.No.1307, the petitioners filed representations before the Joint Collector, Khammam, in the year 2006.
7. The Joint Collector, Khammam, by proceedings dated 04.09.2006 in Case No.E3/1399/2006 and connected matters, ordered correction of the entries in the Sub-Division Record in favour of the petitioners and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha, to disburse ex-gratia in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha, accordingly addressed communication Rc.No.D/2096/96, dated 22.12.2006, to the Chief General Manager, SCCL, Manuguru, requesting deposit of the ex-
