HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18635 of 2025

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the inaction of the respondent authorities, particularly respondent Nos. 3 and 4, in causing enquiry and accordingly, awarding compensation to the petitioner for the subject land admeasuring Acs.03.00 guntas in Survey No.252/26, situated at Hakeempet Village, Dudyal Mandal, Vikarabad District on par with other similarly situated assignment patta holders, despite the representation of the petitioner dated 03.06.2025 and in contrary, proceeding to take away the possession of the subject land as illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently, prayed for other appropriate reliefs.

2. It is stated that the petitioner is a resident of Hakeempet Village and as his father was a landless agricultural worker, the Government had granted assignment for the land admeasuring Acs.3.00 guntas in Survey No.252/26 vide patta certificate No.B4/1684/70-33, dated 16.04.1970 as per the policy enunciated by the Government vide G.O.Ms. No.1406, dated 26.07.1958. It is further stated that, after the death of his father, the petitioner had inherited the rights over the subject land. It is further stated that the petitioner’s name was continued in the revenue records till the year, 2010, but thereafter the name of the petitioner was discontinued from the revenue records and the said land was also missing from the pahani. It is further stated that the said land was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of establishment of Industrial Park. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities did not consider his case for payment of compensation on par with the other assignees.

3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.Rajinikanth Reddy, Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri M.Srikanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and with their consent, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the father of the petitioner was assigned the land and he was issued final patta certificate and the subject land was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of establishment of Industrial Park. Since the Government has granted patta certificate in terms of the Government’s policy, the assignees are entitled for issuance of pattadar passbook, either under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short “the ROR Act, 1971”) or under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (for short “the Act 9 of 2020”). He further submits that the petitioner is also entitled for payment of compensation and in support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment in LAO- cum-RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyderabad v. Mekala Pandu1, wherein it is held that the assignees are entitled to compensation on par with the pattadars of the land.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents contended that after the land was assigned, the petitioner alienated the same in favour of third parties by way of sadabainama. Consequently, his name was deleted from the revenue records, and for the past 15 years, the names of the subsequent purchasers have been reflected therein. It is submitted that based on the existing entries in the revenue records, the respondent authorities have determined and disbursed compensation to those individuals. Thus it is contended that the petitioner has no subsisting right or title

1 2004 (2) ALD 451

over the subject land and hence, the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue relating to undue delay and laches in State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar, (1995) SUPP 1 SCR, observed as under:-

“A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Mah