Telangana High Court
Shoba Mangillipally vs The State Of Telangana on 15 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT PETITION No.16707 of 2026
DATE: 15.05.2026
Between:
Shoba Mangillipally
W/o. Late M.Suryanarayana.
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Revenue, Secretariat,
Hyderabad and three (03) others.
... Respondents
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
“……to issue an appropriate order or direction, more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus,
declaring the inaction of the Respondents in not
considering and disposing of the Petitioner’s representation
dated 24.11.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the
principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 300-A of
the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the
Respondents to revise the location of the proposed storage
tank from its present position in the middle of the
Petitioner’s land to the beginning of the land where the
inlet pipelines enter, in Sy.No.148, admeasuring Ac.0-28
guntas, situated at Chilkamarri Village, Gudipally Mandal
(previously Peddadiserla Pally Mandal), Nalgonda District,
and further realign the inlet and outlet pipelines in such a
manner that the Petitioner’s remaining extent of Ac.11.01
guntas is not rendered unfit for meaningful agricultural or
developmental use, and to furnish the Detailed Project
Report (DPR) and revised layout reflecting such relocation
and realignment, and pass such other order or orders as
this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. ….”
2. Heard Mr.Karam Chandu Komireddy, learned counsel for
the petitioner who appeared virtually; learned Assistant
::2::
Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1
to 3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation
appearing for respondent No.4 and perused the material on
record.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner
claims to be the owner and possessor of land admeasuring
Ac.11.29 guntas in Sy.No.148/A/1 situated at Chilkamarri
Village, Gudipally Mandal, Nalgonda District. It is the specific
case of the petitioner that, out of the said extent, an extent of
Ac.0-28 guntas is sought to be acquired for construction of a
storage tank and laying of pipelines under the Akkampally
Balancing Reservoir Lift Irrigation Scheme. The grievance of the
petitioner is that though the petitioner has no objection for
acquisition of the said land, the respondents are proposing to
locate the storage tank and pipelines in the middle of the
petitioner’s land, thereby rendering the remaining extent
unusable for agricultural and other developmental purposes. It
is submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.16998 of
2025 challenging the award proceedings dated 06.01.2025. This
Court by order dated 20.06.2025 disposed of the said writ
petition with the following directions :
i. That if the petitioner is aggrieved with the Detailed Project
Report (DPR) or designs for the construction of storage
::3::
tanks, the petitioner is permitted to make appropriate
representation to the respondents, which the respondents
shall examine strictly in accordance with law.ii. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the compensation awarded,
the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the award
proceedings vide Lr.No.F/59/2023 dated 06.01.2026
before the appropriate forum or make a representation
before the competent authority for allotment of alternative
land in lieu of compensation.
4. It is submitted that pursuant to the said order of this
Court dated 06.01.2026, the petitioner submitted a detailed
representation dated 24.11.2025 (Ex.B1) requesting the
authorities to relocate and realign the proposed storage tank and
pipelines towards the boundary of the petitioner’s land. However,
the respondents have not considered the same and have
proceeded with the construction activity on the said land of the
petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed.
5. Under Article 226 of Constitution of India, this Court does
not sit as an appellate authority over technical project designs.
The choice of alignment for a storage tank and pipelines involves
topographical and engineering considerations. As explicitly held
by this Court in its earlier order dated 20.06.2025 :
“5. This Court is not technically expertised to decide the
proposals/designs prepared for construction of the
storage tanks……”
::4::
6. The petitioner’s request to relocate the storage tank to the
beginning of the land where the inlet pipes enter is a substantive
modification of the Detailed Project Report. Judicial interference
with such technical decisions is warranted only if mala fide,
arbitrariness or perversity is alleged and demonstrated. There is
no such material placed on record in the present writ petition.
The petitioner herself admits that the tank is a part of public
irrigation project and that the petitioner has no objection to the
acquisition per se.
7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation
has placed on record the written submissions issued by
Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division No.4, Angadipet Village,
P.A.Pally Mandal, Nalgonda District which are extracted
hereunder:
It is submitted that requisition proposals were received from
the Executive Engineer. DLIS Division No.4, Angadipet, P.A.
Pally Mandal, Nalgonda District, for acquisition of lands to
an extent of Ac.2.10 guntas in Sy.Nos.128, 132, 133, 138,
140, 148 and 149 situated at Chilkamarry Village of
Gudipally Mandal for execution of Akkampally Balancing
Reservoir Lift Irrigation Scheme, which is a public irrigation
scheme intended for the benefit of ayacut farmers.
The Petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac.0.28 guntas in
Sy.No.148 of Chilkamarry Village was also covered under
the acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The
Petitioner is the pattadar and title holder of the subject land
and was issued Pattadar Passbook No.T28210020354.
Preliminary Notification under Section 11 of the RFCTLARR
Act, 2013 was submitted vide Lr.No.F/59/2023 dated
14.07.2023 and approved by the District Collector, Nalgonda
vide Proc No.G1/4891/2022 dated 24.07.2023. The said
::5::
notification was published in Telangana Extraordinary
District Gazette No.79/2023 dated 25.07.2023. The
notification was also published in the following newspapers
as required under law:
1. Capital Information English Daily dated 10.08.2023;
and
2. Mana Telangana Telugu Daily dated 10.08.2023.
The Petitioner’s land was specifically covered under the said
notification. However, no objections were received from the
Petitioner within the stipulated period prescribed under law.
Subsequently, declaration proposals under Section 19(1) of
the Act in Form-VII were submitted vide L.r.No.F/59/2023
dated 16.12.2023 and approved by the District Collector,
Nalgonda vide Proc.No.G1/4891/2022 dated 16.01.2024.
Gazette publication was also issued vide Gazette No.02
dated 17.01.2024. The declaration was further published in
the following newspapers:
1. Prabhata Velugu Telugu Daily dated 28.01.2024; and
2. The Hans India English Daily dated 28.01.2024.
Further, market value of the subject land was fixed at
Rs.8,31,087/- per acre under Section 26 of the RFCTLARR
Act, 2013 vide Proc.No.F/59/2023 dated 21.10.2023. Award
Enquiry Notice was issued to all notified persons. However,
due to non-availability of the Petitioner’s address and phone
number, notice under Section 21(1) of the Act was served
through affixture on the Notice Board of Chilkamarry Gram
Panchayat Office vide File No.F/59/2023 dated 18.11.2024.
Accordingly, Award Proceedings No.F/59/2023 dated
06.01.2025 were passed for acquisition of Ac.0.28 guntas in
Sy.No.148 along with other lands and compensation
amounting to Rs.18,92,747/-(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Ninety
Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Seven only) was
awarded to the Petitioner. Thereafter, notice under Section
37(2) of the Act was also issued to the Petitioner.
Despite issuance of endorsements dated 16.07.2025 and
22.07.2025 requesting the Petitioner to receive the
compensation amount, the Petitioner did not come forward to
receive the same. Hence, the compensation amount of
Rs.18,92,747/- was deposited before the Hon’ble Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority,
Hyderabad on 25.08.2025 vide Lr.No.F/59/2023 dated
14.08.2025 and accordingly LAOP No.353 of 2025 was
allotted by the Hon’ble Authority.
It is further submitted that the Petitioner had earlier
approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing W.P.No.16998 of
2025 raising substantially similar grievances regarding the
location and alignment of the proposed storage tank and
pipelines.
::6::
The Hon’ble High Court, by order dated 20.06.2025 in
W.P.No.16998 of 2025, was pleased to observe that the
Hon’ble Court is not technically equipped to decide the
proposals/designs prepared for construction of storage tanks
and permitted the Petitioner to submit representation before
the Respondents for examination in accordance with law and
the writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Pursuant thereto, the representations submitted by the
Petitioner dated 04.06.2025, 18.07.2025 and 24.11.2025
were duly examined by the competent technical authorities.
Upon detailed technical examination, it was found that the
existing approved location of the storage tank and alignment
of the pipelines were finalized strictly based on engineering
feasibility, hydraulic requirements, gravity flow
requirements, ayacut considerations, ground levels, field
conditions and overall project requirements.
The Detailed Project Report (DPR), project layouts and
technical designs were duly approved by the competent
authorities and form an integral part of the sanctioned public
irrigation scheme.
It is respectfully submitted that the relocation of the storage
tank and realignment of the pipelines, as sought by the
Petitioner, are technically not feasible. Any alteration in the
approved alignment and location would adversely affect the
hydraulic functioning of the scheme, disturb gravity flow
requirements, affect the ayacut proposed to be served,
necessitate revision of the approved DPR and technical
sanctions and consequently result in escalation of project
cost and delay in execution of the public irrigation project.
It is further submitted that the relevant technical drawings
pertaining to the proposed Main Delivery Cistern (Storage
Tank) and approved pipeline alignment were furnished to the
Petitioner through WhatsApp and also by hand whenever the
Petitioner visited the office and requested for the same.
It is specifically submitted that the pipelines proposed under
the scheme are underground pipelines and after completion
of the works the land surface will be restored. Adequate
access arrangements and crossing facilities are also being
provided to ensure uninterrupted ingress and egress to the
remaining land of the Petitioner. Therefore, the allegation
that the remaining extent of land belonging to the Petitioner
would become unusable, inaccessible or unfit for agricultural,
developmental or construction purposes is baseless,
imaginary and unsupported by facts.
The Respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the
provisions of the RFCTLARR Act. 2013, approved DPR,
sanctioned layouts and technical specifications and there is
no illegality, arbitrariness or violation of principles of natural
justice.
::7::
It is also submitted that the present Writ Petition has been
filed on substantially similar grounds which were already
considered by the Hon’ble High Court in the earlier Writ
Petition and therefore the present Writ Petition is devoid of
merits and liable to be dismissed.
8. The petitioner’s primary prayer seeks a mandamus to
compel the respondents to relocate the tank and realign the
pipelines in a specific manner. In the considered view of this
court, such a mandamus cannot ordinarily be issued. The
respondents have according to the written instructions
submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Irrigation already applied their mind and examined the
representations submitted by the petitioner dated 04.06.2026,
18.07.2025 and 24.11.2025 in detail and found that the request
of the petitioner was not feasible. This Court is not technically
qualified to determine the location of the tank, which according
to the written instruction extracted above, was finalized based on
the engineering feasibility, hydraulic requirements and gravity
flow requirements, ayacut consideration, ground levels, field
conditions and overall project requirements.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner’s
claim of violation of her right to property under Article 300-A of
the Constitution of India is misconceived. The award dated
06.01.2025 has already been passed. The petitioner did not
challenge the validity of the acquisition in the present writ
::8::
petition. On the contrary, the petitioner in her affidavit states
that she has no objection to the acquisition per se. The
petitioner’s grievance regarding the award not being served
properly and the survey having been conducted in her absence
pertain to the pre-award stage. Those issues ought to have been
raised raised in the earlier writ petition or before the reference
Court under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. The said issue cannot be reagitated in
this writ petition, more particularly when there is no challenge to
the award.
10. As regards the compensation, the petitioner was explicitly
granted liberty by the earlier order of this Court dated
20.06.2025 in W.P.no.16998 of 2025 to challenge the award
before the appropriate forum or to seek alternative land in lieu of
compensation. That remedy remains available and is efficacious.
It is settled law that a writ petition is not maintainable for
enhancement of compensation or for seeking an alternative land
in lieu of compensation, when an efficacious statutory
alternative remedy exists under the land acquisition statute.
11. The prayer for mandamus directing relocation and
realignment of the tank in the manner sought by the petitioner
::9::
cannot be accepted. The project involved is a public irrigation
scheme and petitioner cannot be permitted to halt public works,
especially, when there is no objection for acquisition of the land.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court
does not find any merit in the writ petition warranting
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand
closed.
_______________________
G.M. MOHIUDDIN,J
Date:15.05.2026
ADT
