IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION.No.1929 of 2017 DATE: 17.03.2026 Between:

Vadla Nagamani …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana & Others …Respondents

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge the action of the official respondents in allegedly interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the property situated in Sy.No.131/AA, to an extent of Ac.0-20 gts, located at Medpally Revenue Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and also in attempting to pay compensation to a third party i.e. respondent No.5 in respect of the said property as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently, sought a direction that the official respondents be restrained from paying any such land acquisition compensation in favour of respondent No.5 and interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment thereof.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that her father-in-law, by name Sri K. Satyanarayana, was assigned a total extent of Acs.5-00 gts; of land in Survey No.131/AA of Medpally Village, Ranga Reddy District. After the demise of her father-in-law, the petitioner was allotted an extent of Acs.3-00 gts; out of the said total extent of Acs.5-00 gts; under a family settlement, and ever since she has been in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is further stated that the revenue authorities also mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, and that pattadar passbook and title deeds were also issued in her favour in respect of the said extent of Acs.3-00 gts. The petitioner also said to have obtained an agricultural loan from a local bank for the said land. While so, with an intention to establish a Green Pharma City, the Government of Telangana had acquired the said land to an extent of Acs.2-30 gts; out of the said total extent of Acs.3-00gts. However, it is the case of the petitioner that, though it was initially decided to pay compensation to her family after verifying the revenue records and possession in respect of the subject land, the official respondents, subsequently, proposed to pay the compensation to respondent No.5 without any basis.

3. The petitioner is stated to have submitted representations dated 30.11.2016 and 03.01.2017 to respondent No.2-the District Collector, requesting for payment of compensation or ex-gratia in respect of the subject land notified for acquisition to an extent of Acs.2-20 gts; in her favour. Despite such representations, no action was taken by the respondent authorities compelling the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition.

4. While admitting the Writ Petition, this Court vide order dated 20.01.2017 in W.P.M.P. No.2216 of 2017 (I.A. No.1 of 2017), directed the respondents not to pay any compensation either to the petitioner or to respondent No.5 in respect of the schedule property in Sy. No.131/AA, to an extent of Ac.02-20 gts.

5. Respondent No.5 filed a counter-affidavit denying the averments made by the petitioner. It is specifically contended that respondent No.5 is the owner of land admeasuring Acs. 02- 35 gts in Sy. No.131/4 of Medipally Village, Yacharam Mandal, and that the Government had issued proceedings No.B/1422/2004 dated 13.06.2004, assigning the said land in favour of respondent No.5, pursuant thereto, his name was also mutated in the revenue records, and Pattadar Passbook and title deed were issued by the revenue authorities.

6. It is further contended by respondent No.5 that, upon thorough verification of the revenue records, respondent No.6 rightly included and published the name of respondent No.5 in the land acquisition proceedings, as well as in the preliminary and final notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act. However, in view of the interim orders granted by this Court in W.P.M