THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR W.P. No.23320 of 2025

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel Sri C.H.Satish Kumar for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Sri R.Poolsingh Naik for Roads and Buildings for the respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5, learned Standing Counsel Sri K.Pradeep Reddy appearing for the respondent No.6 and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments Sri Bhukya Mangilal Naik, and perused the material made available on the record.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not paying compensation to the land to an extent of Acs.60.00 in Sy.No.39 situated at Annadaivam village belonging to the petitioner- temple which was taken away by the respondent authorities for laying the road from Annapureddipalli to Chaparalapalli village, with a consequential prayer to direct the respondents to take steps for payment of compensation to the petitioner-temple for the above said land by taking into consideration the orders passed in W.A. No.860 of

2009 dated 23.02.2022.

3. The petitioner is Sri Balaji Venkateswara Swamy Vari Devastanam is represented by its Executive Officer.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-temple has got land to an extent of Acs.1997 in Sy.No.39 situated in Annadaivam village. In the said land a road of 60 feet width was formed in the year 1975 from Annapureddipalli village to Chaparalapalli village through the land admeasuring Acs.60.00 in Sy.Nos.39/1, 39/2 and 39/3 belonging to the petitioner-temple. The petitioner-temple made several representations from the year 1980 to the respondent authorities requesting to pay compensation for the aforesaid land. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer, R&B Division, Khammam vide his letter No.DB/B1/83-84 dated 13.01.1984 informed that the road was taken to the R&B fold in the year 1975 and the road was handed over by the Z.P. authorities and as such Z.P. authorities should have paid compensation while laying the road and the department was not responsible for paying compensation. It is further submitted that on 23.08.2006, the petitioner-temple made another representation to the respondent authorities requesting to take necessary steps for payment of compensation to the petitioner-temple for the above land. Since no action was taken thereon, petitioner-temple filed W.P. No.3316 of 2007 before this Court wherein initially this Court on 22.02.2007 in WPMP. No.4226 of 2007 passed the following interim order.

“An extent of 60 acres of land, belonging, to the petitioner-temple was utilized in laying a public road. No compensation was paid there for. When the petitioner demanded for payment of compensation, a reply was issued on 30.8.1996 by the Executive Engineer, P.R. Kothagudem, to the effect that, since nobody had objected to the laying of road, no compensation be paid. The reply issued by R & B Department is also to the same effect. The net result is that the petitioner is denied of the compensation for the land as well as the returns there from.

There shall be an interim direction to the respondents to take necessary steps for initiation of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act or for payment of compensation in accordance with law within two months from today. In default, the respondents Nos.4 and 5 shall be liable to pay the lease amount for 60 acres of land @ Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per annum, per acre, till the amount is ascertained in accordance with law, commencing from the crop year

2007-2008.”

5. It is submitted that when the said interim order was not complied with by the respondents, petitioner-temple filed C.C. No.140 of 2008 and the same was closed on 05.11.2008 on the ground that the main writ petition was disposed of on 05.11.2008. Thereafter, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, respondents preferred an appeal in W.A. No.860 of 2009 and the same was also dismissed on 23.02.2022 holding as under:

“It is an undisputed fact that the land of the temple, which is