##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

WRIT PETITION No.35625 of 2014

DATE: 02.04.2026

Between:

S. Krishna Kumari …Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, rep. by its District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad & others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2^nd Respondent in trying to dispossess and demolishing the building of the Petitioner in H.No.1-5- 15/B in T.S.No.17/5/69 B of Bakaram Village, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad for the purpose of roadwidening without following due process of law, as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and to issue a consequential direction to the 2^nd Respondent to pay the compensation to the petitioner for the land and structures effected by virtue of the Land Acquisition for the proposed road widening and then only proceed with dispossession and demolition of the structure in H.No. 1-5-15/B in T.S. No. 17/5/69 B of Bakaram Village, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad. and to pass such other

order or orders…”

2 WP.No.35625_2014 SCR, J

2. Heard Mr. Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing

Counsel for GHMC, for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The main grievance of the petitioner is to the non- payment of compensation for the land and structures effected by virtue of the Land Acquisition for the proposed road

widening, till date.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, by placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed would contend that as per the road widening programme from Narayanaguda Junction to Musheerabad Junction, the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC, Hyderabad vide proceedings Lr.No.AA/1155/2007 dated 12.11.2007 informed that an extent of 72.22 sq yards was acquired from the petitioner, and compensation was paid only for an extent of 39.61 square yards through award dated 18.06.2013 and requested to take action in respect of balance extent of 32.61 sq.yards on par with the award dated 18.06.2013 @ Rs.41,450/- per square yard paid under private negotiation.

3 WP.No.35625_2014 SCR, J

5. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the Authorities would take necessary action to pay compensation

as per the consent given by the petitioner.

6. When a specific assertion has been made by the respondents regarding payment of compensation for the remaining extent of 32.61 square yards at the aforesaid rate by their counter affidavit filed in January 2021, respondent No.2 ought to have disbursed the said compensation even by this time, even after filing of the writ petition, due to the inaction on the part of respondent No.2 in disbursing compensation for the balance extent of land, the petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of the said amount, had the said compensation been paid within a reasonable time, the petitioner would have

derived substantial benefit therefrom.

7. In that view of the matter, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are hereby directed to pay compensation for the balance extent of land admeasuring 32.61 square yards at the rate of Rs. 41,450/- per square yard, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 28.01.2021 (the date

4 WP.No.35625_2014 SCR, J

of filing of the counter) till the date of actual payment. In the event of failure to comply with the said direction within the stipulated period of two (02) weeks, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the expiry of two

weeks till realization.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall

be no order as to cos