IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.434 of 2026 Dated: 16.04.2026 Between:

Sk. Shabeer and 2 others.

…Appellants and The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (LA & JA Department), Secretariat Buildings, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad, and 7 others.

…Respondents JUDGMENT:

Learned counsel Sri Ch.Ravi Kumar appears for the appellants.

Sri E.Ramesh Chandra Goud, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appears for respondents No.1, 2 and 5 to 8.

Sri B.Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, representing Sri Madishetty Ramu, learned Standing Counsel for National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), appears for respondents No.3 and 4.

2. Three of the writ petitioners out of twelve are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 07.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.25680 of 2023, whereby the learned writ court relegated the writ petitioners to avail the statutory remedy under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act of 1956”), while refusing to entertain the writ petition.

3. The writ petitioners approached the learned writ court for a declaration that the action of the respondents in not taking steps to prepare Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) Scheme and passing award under Section 31 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act of 2013”), though the writ petitioners belong to the category of project affected and displaced families in view of the acquisition made for widening of the existing road from Karimnagar to Warangal section of NH-563, as illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petitioners also prayed that they are entitled to R&R Scheme provided in the Second and Third Schedules of the Act of 2013. In the writ proceedings, there was an interim stay for about a period of two years from dispossession of the writ petitioners. However, according to the appellants, immediately after passing of the impugned judgment, their houses have been demolished and they are on roads. These appellants do not have any grievance as regards the compensation awarded in lieu of the acquisition of their land and structures standing thereupon. They, however, are aggrieved by non-consideration of their claim for R&R Scheme in terms of the Second and Third Schedules of the Act of 2013, which applies to acquisitions made under the Act of

1956.

4. In order to buttress the aforesaid point, learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this court to the order dated 28.08.2015 issued under Section 113(1) of the Act of 2013 by the Central Government wherein the benefits available to the landowners under the Act of 2013 are extended to similarly placed landowners whose lands are acquired under the 13 enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule thereunder, which includes the Act of 1956 at serial No.7. Learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon the comprehensive guidelines issued under the Act of 1956 by the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, dated 28.12.2017, specifically paragraph 4.4 thereof in order to contend that land losers under the acquisition made under the Act of 1956 are not only entitled to compensation in accordance with the First Schedule of the Act of 2013, but also R&R Scheme in accordance with the Second Schedule and the infrastructural amenities in accordance with the Third Schedule, as the Act of 1956 is specified at serial No.7 in the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 2013 with effect from 01.01.2015. Paragraph 4.4 of the said guidelines reads as under:

“4.4 Following the notification of the aforesaid Ordinances, the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways issued a letter dated 29.04.2015 whereby the select provisions of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 were made applicable to the NH Act, 1956 with effect from