IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STAT E OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33398 of 2016 DATE:10.02.2026 Between:

Sri K.Venkat Reddy …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana & Others …Respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

“….to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the notification vide Gazette No. 46/2016, dated 24-09-2016 proposing to pay the total compensation in respect of the land in Sy.No.62, admeasuring 0-15 guntas at Bandaraipakula village, Gopalpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District without considering the objection submitted by the petitioner dated 07- 09-2016 as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to pay the compensation in respect of the above land to the extent 0-07½ guntas in favour of the petitioner and compensation in respect of remaining 0-07½ guntas in favour of the 5th respondent and till consideration of the objection of the petitioner, the compensation in respect of the above land shall not paid to the 5th respondent alone, and pass…”

2. Heard Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Katta Radha Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

3. Despite service of notice to respondent No.5, there is no representation on his behalf.

4. The brief facts of the case are that that the petitioner and respondent No.5 are own brothers, being the sons of Late K. Bal Reddy. After the death of their father, the petitioner and respondent No.5 jointly inherited the agricultural land in Survey No.62, admeasuring Acs.0.15 guntas, situated at Bandaraipakula Village, Revally Village, Wanaparthy District, owned by their late father.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the land admeasuring Acs.0.15 guntas was jointly recorded in the names of the petitioner and respondent No.5, each holding a 50% share, similar to other lands held jointly by them. Accordingly, it is contended that the petitioner is the owner of 0.07½ guntas out of the total extent of 0.15 guntas in Survey No. 62, while the remaining extent is held by respondent No.5.

6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government proposed to acquire the subject land for the purpose of construction of the Palamoor and Ranga Reddy Project and accordingly issued a Notification dated 24.09.2016 under Section 6(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “the Act, 2013”).

7. However, it is the case of the petitioner that, in the said Notification, the name of respondent No.5 alone was shown as the owner of the extent of Acs-0.15 guntas in Survey No.62, which is sought to be acquired. Even though the petitioner is the owner and possessor of 50% out of the total extent of Acs-0.15 guntas in the said Survey No.62, his name was not reflected in the said Notification.

8. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents on 07.09.2016 requesting that compensation to the extent of his 50% share in the subject land be paid to him and that the cheque towards the entire compensation amount should not be released or disbursed in favour of respondent No.5 alone.

9. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite making such a representation, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are proceeding for disbursement of compensation to respondent No.5 alone without considering the objections raised by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the alleged impugned action of the respondents in not considering his objections and in proceeding with payment of compensation in respect of the entire subject land in favour of respondent No.5 alone, as being illegal, arbitrary, and in violatio