THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL Nos. 623 of 2008 Date: 12.03.2026 Between:

Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, rep. by the Vice Chairman, Hyderabad and another …. Appellants AND J.D. Lohade (died) per LRs and others ….Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy The Writ appeal arises out of the order dated 01.02.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5924 of 1999, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein came to be disposed of.

I. BRIEF FACTS

2. The facts, to the extent relevant for the purpose of the present writ appeal, may be briefly be stated as follows. Respondent No.1 was the owner of land admeasuring 6,284 square yards situated in Survey Nos.160/1, 160/27 and 161/7 at Tankbund, Hyderabad. In the year 1985, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh proposed to acquire the said land for the purpose of widening Tankbund road. It was claimed by the petitioners that an agreement was reached with the then Chief Minister for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per square yard, but the agreed amount was not paid in full. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Rt. Nos.1953 and 1954 dated 24.11.1986 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) proposing to acquire 409 square yards and 2,028 square yards respectively, together constituting petition B schedule land measuring 2,437 square yards. An extent of 3,300 square yards was separately acquired under G.O.Rt. No.1951 dated 24.11.1986 and compensation was paid at Rs.250/- per square yard under Award No.14 of 1986 dated 19.12.1986. Subsequently, the Respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition vide W.P. No.21347 of 1996, seeking enforcement of the alleged package deal/settlement with the Government for payment of compensation at the agreed rate of Rs.250/- per square yard for the land taken for widening of Tankbund road. However, this Court while dismissing the writ petition on 26.11.1996, observed that the allegation of breach of settlement could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and that no relief could be granted in respect of 2,437 square yards of land covered by G.O.Rt. Nos.1953 and 1954. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed the impugned writ petition in the year 1999, seeking a writ of mandamus to enforce G.O.Rt.Nos.1953 and 1954 and to direct payment of compensation at market value for petition B schedule land. During the pendency of the proceedings, the original writ petitioner died and their legal representatives were brought on record.

3. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 did not file any counter-affidavit even after prolonged pendency. HUDA alone filed a counter admitting issuance of the acquisition G.Os. and utilization of 3,300 square yards, while alleging that further acquisition was stayed in W.P. No.3030 of 1987 and hence proposals for withdrawal were made. The learned Single Judge, after an elaborate analysis of statutory provisions, concluded that although the fundamental right to property as was entrenched under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India (for short ‘COI’) stands deleted by 42^nd amendment, the right to property continues as a constitutional right under Article 300-A of COI, and no person can be deprived of property except by authority of law and payment of compensation. It was held that under the Act, withdrawal from acquisition is permissible only when possession has not been taken and once possession is taken, acquisition cannot be withdrawn. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the appellants to take necessary steps to pass an award in respect of petition B schedule land covered by G.O.Rt. Nos.1953 and 1954. It was also however, observed by the learned Single Judge, that in case the Government does not want land for any other purpose, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein) may consider to release