2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 9651
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
G.Satyanarayana – Appellant
Versus
The Tahsildar – Respondent
WP 66/2014
##PAGE1##
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.66 OF 2014
DATE:02.03.2026
Between:
G.Satyanarayana.
...Petitioner
AND
The Tahsildar
Kondapak Mandal Kondapak Medak District (3) Others.
…Respondents
:: O R D E R ::
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-
“…to issue a Writ, order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the
respondents herein in not paying the
compensation to the petitioner for the land to
an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas in Sy.No.110/A at
Thimmareddipalli Village, Kondapak Mandal,
Medak District which was allotted as house site
pattas, without following due process of law
under Land Acquisition Act as highly illegal,
arbitrary and consequentially, the Honble
Court may be pleased to direct the respondents
##PAGE2##2
herein to pass award and to pay the
compensation to the petitioner herein for the
above said land as per the market value under
the provisions of the Act…”
2. Heard Sri M.R.Tagore, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Ms. Katta Radha Reddy, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the
respondents. Perused the record.
3. The present writ petition is filed challenging the action
of the respondents, in allegedly depriving the petitioner of
lawful compensation in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.10
guntas in Sy.No.110/A, situated at Thimmareddypalli Village,
Kondapak Mandal, Medak District (presently Siddipet
District). It is the specific case of the petitioner that the said
land was acquired without following due process of law, and
thereafter, allotted as house site Pattas to landless poor
persons.
4. The petitioner asserts that he is the lawful possessor of
the aforesaid land, having purchased the same from one Sri
K.Lakshma Reddy, S/o Seetharami Reddy, for valid
consideration under a registered sale deed dated 09.07.1985,
registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Siddipet. It is
further stated by the petitioner that his name was recorded in
##PAGE3##3
the revenue records. However, owing to financial constraints,
the petitioner could not undertake any construction activities
on the said land and had kept it vacant. It is also stated that
the petitioner, along with his family, had shifted to
Kothaguda, Kondapur, R.R. District, long back.
5. It is further submitted by the petitioner that upon
visiting the subject land at a later point of time, he came to
know that the said land was allotted to landless poor persons
towards house site pattas, and that constructions were also
raised thereon by such allottees. The consistent contention of
the petitioner is that such acquisition and allotment were
effected by the respondents without initiating any proceedings
under Land Acquisition Act and without payment of
compensation thereof to him.
6. It is further submitted by the petitioner that he
approached the respondent authorities seeking clarification
regarding the allotment of the said land to third parties as
house site pattas. Pursuant thereto, the Mandal Revenue
Inspector, Kondapak, on 19.02.2012, conducted a
panchanama in Thimmareddipalli Village. As per the report, it
was revealed that the subject land had been acquired by the
##PAGE4##4
Government and allotted to the landless poor persons for
construction of dwelling houses thereon. The petitioner
contends that the said acquisition was made by the
Government without initiating proceedings under the Land
Acquisition Act or paying compensation to him. The petitioner
stated to have submitted several representations to the
respondent authorities, but there was no response. Under
those circumstances, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated
02.08.2013 to the respondents seeking payment of
compensation at the prevailing market value. As there was
still no response from the respondent authorities, the
petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 09.12.2013
through registered post, followed by