IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4478 of 2007 DATED: 12.02.2026 Between:

Tangirala Rama Krishna and 5 Others. ...Petitioners AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Secretary, Land Acquisition, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 Others. …Respondents :: O R D E R ::

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not considering and accepting the objections of the petitioners under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short “the Act”), and proceeding with acquisition of the lands in Sy.Nos.368/EE/1/1, 368/EE/1/2, 368/U/1 to 3 and 368/E2 total admeasuring Acs.5.00 gts., belonging to the petitioners for the purported public purpose of a township. The petitioners contended that such action is arbitrary and illegal. They further seek a declaration that the 3^rd respondent has no jurisdiction to consider objections under Section 5-A of the Act along with a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject land.

2. Heard Mr. V.Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4.

I. Facts in brief :-

3. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that the respondents, despite the objections submitted by the petitioners, failed to consider the same under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, and proceeded to acquire the petitioners’ lands admeasuring Ac.5.00 gts., in Sy.Nos.368/EE/1/1, 368/EE/1/2, 368/U/1 to 3 and 368/E2 for the alleged public purpose of township development.

4. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit stating that pursuant to a requisition made by the then Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) for acquisition of certain lands covered by Sy.Nos.333, 334, 335, 341, 342, 343, 363, 364 and 368 of Tellapur Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Medak District, for formation of a township, a draft Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued on 22.02.2006 and the draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 03.02.2007.

5. Notices were issued to the pattedars/ land owners to attend the Section 5-A enquiry. All the petitioners, except petitioner No.6, filed objections under Section 5-A. It is further stated that the very same lands were earlier notified for the purpose of Ramchandrapuram Ring Town, but the said notification was withdrawn under Section 48 of the Act vide G.O.Rt.No.488 MA dated 25.03.1992, which is stated to be irrelevant for the purpose of this case. A decision was subsequently taken by the authorities to develop a township, which is asserted to be of immense importance to the general public.

6. It is further submitted that as per the revenue records, the names of petitioner Nos.1 to 5 and 6th petitioner’s mother’s name are reflected as the pattadars of the subject lands. The notices under Section 5-A enquiry were issued to petitioner Nos.1 to 5 herein and to 6th petitioner’s father, Shri I.Sanjeeva Rao. The 6th petitioner’s father filed objections through his counsel, after publication of 4(1) notification and before 5-A enquiry. The petitioner’s counsel Shri K.Sitaram Advocate also filed objections on behalf of the petitioners. Finally, the 5-A enquiry was concluded on 12.05.2006. It is submitted that Sri K.Sitaram Advocate on behalf of petitioner Nos.1 to 5 and on behalf of 6th petitioner’s father I.Sanjeeva Rao, has filed the objections on 26.04.2006 i.e., on the date of 5-A enquiry. Their objections were heard and considered on

26.04.2006 by 4^th respondent.

7. The respondents contended that the lands are required for a public purpose. Due to rapid growth of population and increased demand for housing, the respondents decided to acquire the lands. It is stated that significant changes occurred between 1992 and 2006, necessita