Telangana High Court
C.R Manemmaa vs The Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj on 10 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.38265 OF 2014
DATE: 10.04.2026
Between:
C. R.Manemmaa, W/o Late C.R.Balakistaiah,
R/o. H.No. 41-131, Sanjaypuri, Jagathgirigutta,
Post IDPL Colony, Hyderabad.
.... Petitioner
And
The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj,
Government of Telangana State,
Hyderabad and five others.
.... Respondents
ORDER:
The present writ petition has been filed, declaring the action of
the respondents as illegal, unconstitutional, and against to the due
procedure as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
and consequently direct the respondents to pay the suitable
compensation for the land acquired by the respondents belonging to
the petitioner to an extent approximately Acs.0-05 guntas in
Sy.No.659/A (Patta No.923) situated at Toopran village and Gram
Panchayat, Medak District, village and to pass such order or orders
as deemed fit and necessary in the circumstance of the case.
2
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the absolute
owner and possessor of vacant land, admeasuring Ac.0.13 guntas in
Sy.No.659/A, situated at Toopran village and Gram Panchayat,
Medak district. It is stated that the petitioner was issued a pattadar
passbook and title deed vide Patta No.923 in respect of the said land
and while so, the respondent Nos.4 and 5, without the consent of the
petitioner and without issuing any notification for acquisition of the
said land belonging to the petitioner unilaterally resolved to acquire
Ac.0.05 guntas of land, out of the total extent of Ac.0.13 guntas in
Sy.No.659/A for the purpose of welfare of villagers i.e., for digging
water wells. It is stated by the petitioner that taking advantage of the
absence of the petitioner in the village, the respondent Nos.4 and 5
have taken the possession of the said land without issuing any land
acquisition proceedings, and when the petitioner alleged to have
questioned the same, the respondents have initially promised to
acquire the said land in accordance with law and pay appropriate
compensation to the petitioner, however, the respondent Nos.4 and 5
refused to pay the compensation to the petitioner, and thereupon the
petitioner has issued a legal notice, dated 22.02.2014 to the 5th
respondent and also to other respondents demanding compensation
3
and it is stated that though the 5th respondent received the same,
however, has not chosen to reply the same.
3. It is stated that the petitioner’s land has been illegally taken by
the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and deprived him to enjoy the said land
without payment of any compensation and it is contended that the
respondents being state instrumentalities cannot deprive the citizens
of their valuable constitutional right under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A
of the Constitution of India and thus, the petitioner prays to allow
the writ petition directing the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to acquire the
said land belonging to the petitioner by conducting a proper inquiry
and pay compensation to the petitioner in lieu of the land taken by
them forcibly.
4. The respondent No.6-Municipality of Toopran filed counter-
affidavit stating that the then Gram Panchayat of Toopran village,
which is now upgraded into a Municipality, by virtue of the gazette
notification issued by the Government dated 02.08.2018, the 6th
respondent being the statutory successor to the Gram Panchayat of
Toopran village, and it is contended that the land in Sy.No.659/A
has been in physical possession and enjoyment of the Gram
Panchayat for more than five decades from the year 1970, and during
4
the said period, the well was constructed on the said land of the
petitioner, which was serving the public at large and providing
drinking water to the villagers of Toopran. The petitioner’s husband
permitted the Gram Panchayat to dig the well for the use by villagers
and that the petitioner, who claims to have inherited the property by
way of succession around 2007 upon death of her husband. Further,
until 2013, she and her husband remained silent for almost 44 years
and permitted the said land to be used by Gram Panchayat where the
well was dug for drinking water source of the villages. Further, it is
contended that by virtue of their consent, the said land vested in the
Gram Panchayat and after many years, the petitioner has approached
this Court in the year 2014.
5. Further, it is contended that as the well was very much existing
and being put to use from 1970 to 2014, and almost 44 years
thereafter, the petitioner slept over her right from the year 1970,
during the life time of the petitioner’s husband, he never objected for
the same and now after the lapse of many years, petitioner has issued
legal notice and filed the instant writ petition, and if the petitioner
had a grievance, she ought to have objected the use of the said land
by the then Gram Panchayat way-back in the year 1970, and if she
5
had any objection, she should have approached this Court within a
reasonable period for payment of compensation, and having waved
their right, the relief claimed in the writ petition is not maintainable,
and as such, the writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be
dismissed.
6. Evidently, as per the contents of the affidavit, it is clear that an
extent of Ac.0.05 guntas of land has been used by the respondent
Nos.4 and 5 for several years for the purpose of a well, which served
as a source of drinking water for the villagers. The petitioner’s
husband never objected the said use, more so, had the petitioner
asserted her rights and objected to use the land by the respondent
Nos.4 and 5, even within a reasonable period from the year 1970, and
sought compensation by establishing her title over the said land, she
would have been entitled to the compensation. However, having
permitted the 4th and 5th respondents to use the said land for digging
a well for the purpose of providing drinking water to the villagers,
the petitioner cannot now turn around and say that the respondent
Nos.4 and 5 have illegally occupied the said land without paying any
compensation. More so, the petitioner has not approached the
authorities within a reasonable period, and that too approached this
6
Court after more than 4 to 5 decades. In that view of the matter, in
the considered view of this Court, the relief sought in the instant writ
petition is not maintainable as the petitioner was not diligent enough
for asserting her right for the past several years, and thus, the present
writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
7. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, the Writ
Petition is misconceived, and is accordingly dismissed.
8. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous
applications if any shall stand closed.
________________________________
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO,J
Date: 10.04.2026
kkm
7
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.38265 OF 2014
Date: 10.04.2026
kkm
