WA/500/2026 of BoIlu Sammi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana on 30 April 2026

1. Bollu Sammi Reddy, S/o. Chandra Reddy, Aged 56 years, H.No.2-64

2. Boiledla Gyana Kumari, Wo. Thirupathi Reddy, Aged 55 years, H.No.2-66

3. Bollu Thirupathi Reddy, S/o. B. Narasimha Reddy, Aged 56 years, H.No.2-66

4. Bollu Sanjivamma, W/o. Bollu Venkat Reddy, Aged 75 years, H. No.2-63 All are residents of Oorugonda Village, Damera Mandal, Hanumakonda District- 506342 ...APPELLANTS/WRIT PETITIONERS 01 to 04 Gondhi Rajkoti Reddy, S/o. G. Ravinder Reddy, Aged: 35 years, H.No.2-147, Oorugonda Village, Damera Mandal, Hanumakonda District - 506342 ...Not Necessary party/Writ Petitioner No.O5 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (JA & LA) Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad.

2. District Collector, Hanumakonda District, Hanumakonda, Telangana State

3. Revenue Divisional Officer cum Competent Authority for Land Acquisition, Parkala Division, Parkala, Hanumakonda District

4. Mandal Tahsildar, Damera mandal, Damera, Hanumakonda District

5. Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi

6. The National Highway Authority of lndia, Rep. by its, Regional Officer, Banjara Hills, Road No.3, Beside SBH Staff College, Hyderabad

7. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of lndia, PlU, Warangal, Warangal District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 2OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of impugned final order daled 07.04.2026 passed in W.P.No.26406 of 2025 while restoring the interim order dt.09.09.2025 in the said writ petition Counsel for the Appellant: SRI CH. RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: ASST. GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.6 & 7: SRI MADISHETTY RAMU, SC FOR NHAI The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

1 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE K. LAKSHMAN AND HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO WRIT APPEAL No.500 OF 2026 Dater 30.04.2026 Between: Bollu Sammi Reddy and 4 others. ..... Appellants AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (JA & LA) Department, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 6 others. . . ...Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Juslice K. Lalchman) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 07.04.2026 in W.P.No.26406 of 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, the unsuccessful writ petitioners filed the present Intra-Court appeal under Clause I 5 of l€tters Patent.

2. It is apt to note that out of five writ petitioners, 4 of them preferred the present apPeal. \

3. W.P.No.26406 of 2025 was filed seeking following relief: "...1o i.\sue o ll/rit Order or Direction more particularly one in tlrc nuture of ll'RIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondenl uutlnritics particularlJ respondent No-3 in (a) issuing invalid public noliccs under section 3-G of NH Act 1956 and passing tnt,alid and irtcomplete av'ards vide proceedings No.8/85/202 t - 1}-NIt-1 63G dt. 16.01.2024 for the subject lands of thc petitio ers in Oorugonda wllage, Dqmera mandal, Hanumakonda District itt violation ofprovisions of NH Act 1956 rearl with RFCTLARR Removal of Dfficulties order dt.28 08.2015 (b) proceeding to take over possession of the subjcct lands by issuing inralid notices u/s 3E based on the said impugncd au'ards, (c) causing publication of Section 3-D notilication dt.()8.03.2022 without disposing the objections of the pelttioners as required under the law and based on an inyalid and incorrecl rcport and (d) making multiple notilitations u/s 3A v,ith incorrcct and incomplete inforntotion/dncription .[or acquisition of subjcct lands of tlrc petitiotrcrs alottg with olher land owner.s o1f Oorugonda village, Dantra mandal as illegal, unconsl itutional, agairct lhe prirrcil:lcs o.f natural justice atrd tlrc principles laid dou,n by Hon'ble Apc.r courl and consequcntly sat aside (a) 3A notificcttion vidc S.O.No.l102 dt.10.03.2021 and 3-D notificorion virle No.10l7 dt.08.03.20]2 (b) noticc under sectiott 3G vidc No.Bt85/2019 dt.04.02.2023 and (c) award proceedings No.ll/it5/2021..10-NH-163G dt.16.01.2024, pertaining to the subjctt lands of tlle pelitioncrs in Oorugonda illage, Damera mandul of Hanunrukonda District lhat are put under acquisilion for thc proposcd NI{-163C on thc stretch of land from Km.88.418 to Knt.I I I .762 Parkal and pass... "

4. In the said writ petition, the writ petitioners have contended that they are entitled lor benefits under R&R scheme as provided in the Second and Third Schedules of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (For short, 'Act, 2013') and also the compensation in respect of structures and tress such as Bore/Open I I

Wells/Pipelines, Drips, standing crop including maize, banana, as per the prevailing market value. It is also apt to note that they have obtained interim stay on 09.09.2025 in the said writ petition. The same was continued tlll 07.04.2026 on which date, while disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge vacated the said interim order.

5. Vide the impugned order dated 07.04.2026, the leamed Single Judge disposed of the writ petition relegating the writ petitioners to avail the statutory remedy under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and thereafter, if necessary, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

6. It is the specific contention of the appellants herein that after vacating the interim order dated 09.09.2025 and disposal of the wdt petition by the learned Single Judge on 0'7.04.2026, the respondents tried to dispossess the appetlants from the subject property' There is standing crop of Maize and Banana' The respondents are trying to lay road in the subject property in which event, the appellants are not in a position to prepare claim in respect of the structures such as Bore/Open Wells/Pipelines, Drips, standing crop like Banana, Maize etc. therefore, they have preferred the present writ appeal. _1

7. During the course of hearing, Sri Ch. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel lor the appellants; Sri. B.Narasimha Sharma, leamed Additional Solicitor General of India, representing Sri Madishetty Rarnu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 7, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Land Acquisition appcaring for respondent Nos. I to 4, brought to the notice of this Courl that yide judgment dated 16.04.2026, the leamed Division Bench disposed of W.A.No.434 of 2026 prelerred by the similarly situated persons as that of the appellants herein. The leamed Division Bench, while setting aside the irnpugned judgment therein granted liberty to the appellants therein to approach respondent No.7 therein, with a clairn for entitlement towards R&R Scheme under the Second and fhird Schedules ol the Act, 2013. lt was further directed that, upon such application being made, respondent No.7 therein would take a decision in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment along with the application. l-eamed Division Bench also took note of the submission made by the appellants therein that their houses have been demolished aftel passing ofthe impugnedjudgment and observed that it would be open lor thern to seek directions from the competent authority for I

il providing temporary shelter in the meantime' which shall also be considered in accordance with [aw'

8. Sri Ch. Ravi Kumar, leamed counsel for the appellants would submit that in the present case, the subject properties comprises of agricultural land, open spaces, wherein, there are Bore/Open Wells/Pipelines, Drips, standing crop of Maize and Banana and in proof of the same, he has filed photographs' In the present case' respondents did not pay any compensation to the appellants in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013' Therefore' liberty may be given to the appellants to approach respondent No'2 seeking compensation in accordance with law' g. Whereas, Sri B. Narsimha Sharma, leamed Additional Solicitor General of tndia would contend that respondent No.3 has already passed a supplementary award' vide Proceedings No'B/85/2021-10- NH-163c-Structure, dated 28.05'2025 with regard to the compensation of structures/trees, which were not included in the earlier awards. Therefore, there is no need for granting liberty to the appellants to approach respondent No'3 seeking compensation for the structures. ; I I

10. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants sought to set aside the said proceedings dated 28.05.2025 also on the ground that the same was passed without affording an opportunity to the appellants even to claim structures including Bore/Open Wells/Pipelines, Drips, etc. I l. In the tight of the said submission, it is apt to note that the appellants have raised the said ground before the leamed Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition. Therefore, it is for the appellants to make a claim with regard to the same before respondent No.3 seeking benefits under R&R Scheme and insofar as compensation is concemed, they have to approach respondent No.2. 12- Learned Additional Solicitor General of India, has produced written instructions of respondent No.6 stating that appellant No. I has given consent for possession of the land including Clearing and Grubbing (about 110 meters). In respect of appellant Nos.2 and 3, they have given consent and requested one day time for safe removal of the drip irrigation work/pipes associated with it. Accordingly, out ofabout 100 meters, clearing and grubbing in respect of50 meters has been cornpleted. With regard to appellant No.4, possession of the land including Ctearing and Grubbing (about 15 meters) has been taken over with consent.

13. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, on instructions, disputes the said fact contending that the appellants are in possession of the subject proPerty and there is standing crop of Maize and Banana. There are drips and also pipes and borewell' Therefore, reasonable time may be granted to the appellants to approach respondent Nos.2 and 3 seeking benefits in terms of the Act' 2013 and in the meanwhile, protection may be granted to them'

14. In the light of the aforesaid consensus arrived among the parties, this writ appeal is disposed of. The impugned judgment dated 07.04.2026 passed in W.P.No.26406 of 2025 by the learned Single is set aside. Liberty is granted to the appellants to approach respondent No.3 seeking benefits under R&R Scheme as provided under Second and Third Schedules of the Act,2013. Liberty is also grantedto the appellants to approach respondent No-2 seeking compensation in respect of structures, trees, Bore wells, Pipelines, Drips, standing crop including Banana and Maize, based on the prevailing market value and respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The appeltants shall approach II

A respondent Nos.2 and 3 with their respective claims, within one (01) week from today. Upon receipt of the said claims, both respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall consider and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the appellants fiom the subject property and not to interfere with their possession over the subject property. Liberty is also granted to the appellants to submit alI the relevant documents, photographs, etc, in support of their claims before respondent Nos.2 and 3 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall consider the same. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. SD/- P. CH.-IIAGABEUSHAM BA OEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Principal Secretary, Revenue (JA & LA) Department, The State of Telangana, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad.

2. District Collector, Hanumakonda District, Hanumakonda' Telangana State

3. Revenue Divisional officer cum competent Authority for Land Acquisition, Parkala Division, Parkala, Hanumakonda District

4. Mandal Tahsildar, Damera mandal, Damera, Hanumakonda District

5. The Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Union of lndia, New Delhi

6. The Regional officer, The National Highway Authority of lndia, Banjara Hills, Road No.3, Beside SBH Staff College, Hyderabad

7. The Project Drrector, National Highways Authority of lndia, PlU, Warangal, Warangal District.

8. One CC to SRI CH. RAVI KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]

9. One CC to SRI MADISHETTY RAMU, SC FOR NHAI [OPUC]

10. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI

f) fi.One CC to SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia [OPUC] 1 2. Two CD Copies BN I / <:a

I CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 3010412026

JUDGMENT

l l '.,t :.1 .--,/ ) \ \ c-_ \> )r i.,iij -':; WA.No.50O of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS \ t d 0