SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top