THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.31824 of 2024

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.6, and with the consent of the counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

2. Petitioners contend that since, the time of their forefathers, they have been cultivating the agricultural land belonging to Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Temple situated in survey Nos.37, 40, 42, 48 and 58 of Raviryala Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and they are recognized as ‘protected tenants’.

3. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the respondents-authorities are taking steps to evict them from the said land without paying any compensation.

4. Petitioners further contend that though in the writ petition viz., W.P.No.20052 of 2022, dt.28.04.2022, the respondents-authorities have claimed to have deposited compensation amount payable before the Civil Court by making a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), neither the details thereof were furnished to the petitioners nor the petitioners received any notice from the Court, and as such the action of the respondents-authorities in seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land, which has a standing paddy crop and other commercial crops, is illegal and arbitrary.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that an Award has been passed on 20.06.2006 in respect of the subject land and Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Temple has been recorded as the owner of the subject land, while, the petitioners are shown as ‘interested persons’.

6. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since, an Award has been passed way-back in June, 2006, and reference has been made in terms of Section 30 of the Act, the petitioners, who are continuing to occupy the subject lands, are to be considered as encroachers.

7. It is further contended by the learned Government Pleader that by virtue of operation of law, the petitioners cannot claim to be ‘protected tenants’ in respect of endowment land.

8. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 9. This Court recently had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 82 of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987(for short ‘the Endowments Act’) vis-à-vis the tenancy in WP.No.17150 of 2019, dt.30.10.2024. In the said decision this Court following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nallamilli Rami Reddy & Ors.1 and the decision of this Court in Ch.Satyanarayana & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer- cum-Sub-Collector & Others2 and The Executive Officer, Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Ammavaru Devasthanam v. Bokka Venkata Rao & Others3, had held that a tenant under Endowments Act is not entitled for any right or benefit under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘Act

30 of 2013’).

10. However, this Court in the aforesaid decision taking note of the fact that the petitioners therein have claimed to be ‘persons interested’, directed the respondents- authorities to verify as to whether the petitioners therein were recorded as ‘persons interested’ in order to be entitled for R&R Package benefits, since, the acquisition therein

1 2001 (7) SCC 708

2 2008(2) ALD 679 = 2008(2) ALT 742

3 2010 SCC online AP 608

was undertaken in terms of the provisions of Act 30 of

2013.

11. In the facts of the present case, though the petitioners are recorded as ‘interested persons’, since, an award has been passed way back in June, 2006 under the provisions of Act, 1894, and a reference having been made under Section 30 of the Act, 1894 to the Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioners a