IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 34438 of 2024

07^th April, 2026 Between

1. Anandapu Tirupathi S/o Bhoomaiah, and others … Petitioners AND

1. The State of Telangana, and others … Respondents

ORDER

The case of the petitioners, precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that in the first week of April 2021, they first became aware—purely by chance—of a Section 3A notification published in Gazette No. 10162(E) dated 02.03.2021, which had appeared in newspapers on 25.03.2021, proposing acquisition of lands in approximately 10 villages in Chityal, Mogullapally, and Tekumatla mandals, including portions of the petitioners’ lands. The notification, however, contained only survey number-wise extents and lacked landowner details, preventing them from filing meaningful objections. Nevertheless, they submitted preliminary objections within the stipulated time to the competent authority, expressing their unwillingness to part with their lands and proposing, as an alternative, the expansion of an existing highway rather than the construction of a new one. These objections were reiterated during a discussion held on 31.05.2021, where they emphasized their dependence on the land for livelihood. The petitioners assert that no formal notice of hearing, nor any communication regarding the disposal of their objections, was ever provided thereafter.

1.1 It is stated that in March 2023, they came to know of a public notice under Section 3G displayed at the Gram Panchayat office, calling upon affected landowners to submit documents for compensation claims. It is stated that this was the first instance where farmer-wise extents of land acquisition was disclosed, as they had not been previously informed of the Section 3D declaration. Acting on this notice, some petitioners submitted representations highlighting discrepancies in survey numbers and extents, and pointing out the omission of structures and trees from the acquisition. They also reiterated their earlier objection to the project alignment. It is stated that the authoritiesorally assured them that these discrepancies would be examined and rectified prior to passing the awards.

1.2. It is stated that, contrary to these assurances, during April and May 2024 the petitioners were served individual award notices specifying acquisition extents and compensation amounts. These notices allegedly stated that there were no trees or structures on the lands. They assert that no proper award enquiry was conducted and that they were denied copies of the award proceedings at that stage. Although officials, including the Tahsildar, subsequently visited the lands and conducted some form of enquiry, no prior notices, reports, or revised findings were shared with the petitioners. It was only in October 2024, through applications made under the Right to Information Act, they obtained copies of the awards and related proceedings, including modification orders dated 05.09.2024, which altered both land extents and compensation amounts without issuing fresh notices.

1.3. Upon reviewing these documents, the petitioners discovered that multiple Section 3A notifications dated 10.03.2021 and 21.04.2022 had been issued for the same highway stretch, followed by corresponding Section 3D declarations dated 22.02.2022 and 07.10.2022. They assert that only one set of notifications was ever publicly displayed, and that the second set was neither locally published nor communicated to them. They further allege that only one public notice under Section 3G(3) dated 08.03.2023 was issued, and that no notice was given for the second set of proceedings. According to the petitioners, the authorities failed to provide landowner-specific details, did not conduct Gram Sabha consultations, and issued notifications in newspapers with negligible circulation, thereby defeating the statutory purpose of publication. It is alleged that no personal hearing was conducted b