Telangana High Court
The Special Deputy Collector vs Sri Siddiraj Manik Prabhu Maharaj, Died … on 2 April, 2026
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2178 and 2209 OF 2022
Dated: 02.04.2026
The Special Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition (Industries),
Hyderabad.
... Petitioner - Petitioner
And
1.Sri Siddiraj Manik Prabhu Maharaj, died per L.R.
and others
... Respondents -Respondents
COMMON ORDER
1. These Memorandum of Civil Revision Petitions are filed under
Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code (in short CPC) assailing the common
order passed by the learned V Additional District and Session Judge,
Medak at Sangareddy, in EA.Nos.59 and 60 of 2018, dated 16.11.2021.
2. Petitioner is the judgment debtor and respondents are the decree
holders.
3.1 CRP.No.2178 of 2022 is arising out of dismissal of E.A.No.60 of 2018
which is filed under Order XXI Rule 26 read with Section 151 of CPC with
a prayer to grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.233 of 2011.
3.2 CRP.No.2209 of 2022 is arising out of dismissal of E.A.No.59 of 2018
which is filed under Section 144 read with Section 151 of CPC to direct
2/13
BRMR,J
CRP.Nos.2178 & 2209 of 2022
the respondent to remit an amount of Rs.33,03,133/- before the
Executing Court.
4. Both the applications i.e., EA.No.59 of 2018, [for a direction to remit
an amount of Rs.33,03,133/-] and EA.No.60 of 2018 [to stay all further
proceedings in EP.No.233 of 2011], came to be dismissed vide common
order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the learned V Additional District and
Session Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.
5. The affidavits filed by the Special Deputy Collector, (FAC), Land
Acquisition (Industries), Hyderabad, Medchal – Malkajgiri District is one
and the same in both the applications, except the prayers, i.e., one to
direct the respondent to remit the amount and the another prayer is to
stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.233 of 2011.
6. Since CRP.No.2178 of 2022 is numbered prior point of time hence
the contents of the affidavit in E.A.No.60 of 2018 are taken for further
reference.
7.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner in both the CRPs submits that
the learned Trial Court has failed to consider that the petition schedule
property is registered under Section 43 of APC & HRI and Endowments
Act 30 of 1987 by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department,
Ranga Reddy and Medak District vide proceedings No.B/1712/1993,
3/13
BRMR,J
CRP.Nos.2178 & 2209 of 2022
dated 12.11.1993 and the compensation amount, if any, has to be paid to
the temple and not to the respondents herein.
7.2 Respondent No.1 herein his individual capacity and not in the
capacity of agent of the temple had filed cross objections vide SR
No.37484 of 2002 in A.S.No.3 of 2002 and after hearing both sides High
Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the LAO and allowed the cross
objection filed by the respondent No.1 enhancing the compensation from
Rs.9/- to Rs.12/- per square yard. Basing on the enhancement made by
the High Court in the cross objections, the respondent No.1 has filed
E.P.No.233 of 2011 for enforcement of the decree dated 21.06.2011,
which is against the orders passed in A.S.No.483 of 1978.
7.3 The learned Trial Court has not considered the fact that aggrieved by
the order and decree in O.P.No.19 of 1977, dated 28.12.1978, the
Endowment Department has carried the matter by way of appeal being
A.S.No.483 of 1978 and the High Court by judgment dated 25.11.1985
held that Eeshwar Swami temple is entitled to the compensation amount
and further held that accredited representative or trustee or any other
person authorised to act on behalf of the temple is entitled to claim the
compensation amount when deposited. Respondent No.1 has no authority
to seek reference under Section 18 of LA Act in his individual capacity in
view of the judgment and decree in A.S.No.483 of 1979, in which it was
declared that Sri Eeshwar Swami temple is the owner which is confirmed
4/13
BRMR,J
CRP.Nos.2178 & 2209 of 2022
by virtue of dismissal of SLP filed by Sri Manikprabhu Maharaj before the
Supreme Court.
7.4 The irregularities committed by respondent No.1 in filling the
application in his individual capacity and that too time barred application
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and after it came to the
knowledge of the petitioner, immediately he had taken steps for filing two
separate applications i.e., (i) E.A.No.59 of 2018 to remit the amount, (ii)
E.A.No.60 of 2018 to stay all further proceedings in the E.P.No.233 of
2011.
7.5 It is glaringly apparent on the face of the record that respondent
No.1 is not entitled for compensation of the temple and compensation
amount shall be given to the temple itself. Counsel to substantiate his
contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Mohammed
Hasnuddin Vs. State of Maharashtra 1, (ii) Officer on Special Duty (Land
Acquisition) and Others Vs. Shah Manilal Chandulal and Others 2, (iii)
P.K. Sreekantan and Others Vs. P.Sreekumaran Nair and Others 3 and (iv)
Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition, Anantapur Vs.
K.Kodandaramacharlu 4.
1 MANU/SC/0311/1978
2 MANU/SC/1554/1996
3 (2006) 13 SCC 574
4 MANU/AP/0113/1965
5/13
BRMR,J
CRP.Nos.2178 & 2209 of 2022
8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the
learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case in right
perspective and rightly dismissed both the applications i.e., E.A.No.59 of
2018 and E.A.No.60 of 2018 by assigning cogent reasons. Counsel to
substantiate his contentions, has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i)
Union of India (UOI) and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and
others 5 (ii) Sharda Devi Vs. State of Bihar and Others 6, (iii) Land
Acquisition Collector, Mohali and Others Vs. Surinder Kaur 7 and (iv)
Timmaraju Sakuntala Devi and another Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer
(LAO) Tenali 8 and prayed to dismiss both the CRPs.
9. Learned counsels on record have filed their written submissions in
support of their contentions.
10. E.P.No.223 of 2011 in O.P.No.117 of 1996 is filed by the respondents
– DHRs against the petitioner – JDR on 21.06.2011. As per the said E.P.
balance to be deposited is Rs.1,09,64,062-37. The prayer made in the
E.P. is to attach the properties of the petitioner – JDR and the same to be
sold in public auction under Order XXI Rules 43, 64 and 66 of CPC. The
property to be attached are tables – 50, chairs – 200, Almaras – 50,
computers – 40, typewriters-10, Xerox machine – 5, coolers – 10, fans –
50, AC machines -20, duplicator – 2, Government vehicles – 5.
5 MANU/SC/1275/1996
6 MANU/SC/0010/2003
7 MANU/SC/0876/2013
8 1990 (2) ALT 544
6/13
BRMR,J
CRP.Nos.2178 & 2209 of 2022
11. The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation [herein
after called as APIIC] had sent a requisition for acquisition of land for
establishment of Industrial Development area in survey Nos. 409, 410,
411 and 412 to an extent of Ac.57.12 guntas, situated at Patancheru
village and Mandal. The extent of land acquired in survey No.409 is
Ac.15-05 guntas and in Survey No.410 is Ac.16-03 guntas aggregating to
Ac.31.08 guntas. Land acquisition proceedings were initiated in
proceedings No.B/1859/1974. Section 41 notification for the land is
issued on 11.07.1974 and thereafter possession of the land was taken on
25.09.1979. Award came to be passed on 12.04.1976 for an amount of
Rs.1,50,984.48 in the name of Sri Hanumantha Reddy. As there was a
title dispute, the land acquisition officer made a reference under Section
30 of Land Acquisition Act in O.P.No.19 of 1977 on the file of the learned
Additional District Judge, Medak, Sangareddy.
12. Respondent No.1 herein was the claimant No.2 in the above O.P., he
filed objection before the Land Acquisition Officer on 01.06.1976 stating
that the lands in question belongs to Eswara Swamy Temple of Manik
Prabhu Samsthan of Maniknagar and he being the Peetadhipathi of the
said Manik Prabhu Samsthan he is entitled to receive the compensation.
P.Hanumantha Reddy was the claimant No.1 and the Commissioner of
Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh was claimant No.3.
P.Hanumantha Reddy filed a claim statement, he did not participate in
7/13
BRMR,J
CRP.Nos.2178 & 2209 of 2022
the enquiry and he remained ex parte in O.P.No.19 of 1977. The
proceedings in O.P.No.19 of 1977 were in between the respondent No.1
and the Commissioner of Endowment. Learned Additional District Judge
was pleased to allow the claim of the respondent No.1 holding that he is
entitled to receive the entire compensation amount awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer vide order and decree dated 28.12.1978. The
Commissioner of Endowment aggrieved by the order and decree in
O.P.No.19 of 1977, dated 28.12.1978 preferred appeal vide A.S.No.483 of
1979 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court, vide
judgment dated 25.11.1985 held that accredited representative or trustee
or any other person authorised to act on behalf of the temple is entitled to
claim compensation amount. This said order has attained finality.
13. Respondent No.1 basing on the observations of the High Court in
A.S.No.483 of 1979, dated 25.11.1985 filed an application in I.A.No.282
of 1974 in O.P.No.19 of 1977 to declare him as Muthawalli of Eshwar
Swamy Temple. The learned District Judge at Medak at Sangareddy after
due inquiry was pleased to allow the application filed by the respondent
No.1 and declared him as Muthawalli and accredited trustee of Sri Eswar
Swamy Manik Prabhu Deval at Patancheru. Respondent No.1 has also
filed I.A.No.203 of 1995 in O.P.No.19 of 1977 under Rule 231 & 232 of
Civil Rules of Practice for issuance of check of Rs.5,86,081/- in his favor.
The same was allowed by the learned Trial Court on 22.03.1995.
8/13
BRMR,J
CRP.Nos.2178 & 2209 of 2022
14.1 The respondent No.1 moved an application on 05.05.1995 for
an enhancement of compensation amount before the Land Acquisition
Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer vide proceedings No.C/681/1995
dated 20.01.1996 has made a reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, holding that two conditions as enumerated under Section
18 of the Act has to be satisfied. The Land Acquisition Officer while
passing the order dated 20.01.1996 observed in the order that according
to Section 18 of LA Act, the applicant must satisfy two conditions: (i) it
must be filed within two months from the date of the receipt of
compensation (ii) the amount of compensation should have been accepted
under protest.
14.2 Insofar as condition No.1 is concerned, the LAO came to a
conclusion that the claimant has received the compensation on
23.03.1995 and has filed the petition under Section 18 before the LAO on
05.05.1995, which is within 2 months and the condition is satisfied.
Insofar as second condition is concerned, the Court declared the claimant
as genuine and bona fide for receiving compensation and accordingly, the
Court has passed order on 30.01.1995 and the claimant has filed an
affidavit in the Court on 02.03.1995 stating that he is accepting the
amount under protest. Since both the conditions are satisfied the papers
were submitted to the District Court.
9/13
BRMR,J
CRP.Nos.2178 & 2209 of 2022
15. Petitioner has not challenged the reference order dated 20.01.1996
vide LR No.C/681/1995 and it has attained finality. The reference made
by the LAO is numbered as O.P.No.117 of 1996. The learned District
Court, after due inquiry, has passed an order on 29.10.2001, awarding
enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.9/- per square yard.
16. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.10.2001, before the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide A.S.No.3 of 2002. Respondent No.1
has filed cross-objections vide SR.No.37484 of 2002.
17.1 The High Court, while granting stay in CMP.No.113 of 2002, in
A.S.No.3 of 2002, has directed the petitioner herein to deposit half of the
enhanced compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of the
said order and that respondent No.1 was permitted to withdraw the
amounts vide CMP.No.11395 of 2002 in A.S.No.3 of 2002. In compliance
of the order passed by the High Court, the petitioner has deposited an
amount of Rs.33,03,133/- to the credit of O.P.No.117 of 1996, that is
50% of the enhanced compensation. Respondent No.1 has withdrawn the
said amount by filing the E.P.
17.2 The High Court vide order dated 28.11.2008 was pleased to
dismiss the appeal (A.S.No.3 of 2002) and allowed the cross-objections
(SR).No.37484 of 2002 filed by the respondent No.1 by enhancing the
compensation from Rs.9/- per square yard to Rs.12/- per square yard.
10/13
BRMR,J
CRP.Nos.2178 & 2209 of 2022
18. Petitioner has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of the
High Court in AS.No.3 of 2002, dated 28.11.2008, and the order passed
in OP.No.117 of 1996 has attained finality.
19. Respondents have made several representations to the petitioner to
deposit the balance amount along with interest. As they failed to do so,
they filed E.P.No.233 of 2011, seeking attachment of movable properties
of the petitioner. It is to be noted here that the grounds raised by the
petitioner in EA.Nos.59 and 60 of 2018 were not agitated before the
learned Trial Court in O.P.No.117 of 1996 or before the High Court in
A.S.No.3 of 2002. Petitioner cannot turn around and say that the
reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is barred by
law. The Land Acquisition Officer has arrived at a conclusion that
respondent No.1 has complied the two conditions and referred the matter
to the District Court. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the reference made by LAO is barred by law is not justified
with any reasons.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the High Court in
A.S.No.483 of 1979 dated 25.11.1985 held that accredited representative
or trustee or any other person authorized to act on behalf of the Eeshwar
Swamy temple is entitled to claim the compensation amount. The
petitioner has preferred SLP.No.4010 of 1986 questioning the judgment
dated 25.11.1985, the SLP came to be dismissed on 04.12.1989.
11/13
BRMR,J
CRP.Nos.2178 & 2209 of 2022
21. It is to be noted here that respondent No.1 has filed I.A.No.282 of
1994 in O.P.No.19 of 1977 to declare him as Muthawalli in pursuance of
the orders passed by the High Court in A.S.No.483 of 1979 dated
25.11.1985 which was allowed on 30.01.1995. The petitioner has not
challenged the said order and it has attained finality. The petitioner now
cannot turn around and seek a relief with a direction to the respondents
to remit the amount.
22.1 In Mohammed Hasnuddin1, the Supreme Court held that
making of an application for reference within prescribed time under
Section 18 is a sine quanon for a valid reference by the Collector.
22.2 In Shah Manilal Chandulal2, the Supreme Court held that filing
application under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for reference
to the Court should be within the time prescribed under Section 18 and
Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay is not permissible.
22.3 In P.K. Sreekantan3, the Supreme Court held that application
filed under Section 30 cannot be converted into reference application
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
22.4 In K. Kothanda Ramacharyulu4, the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh held that the date of the Collector’s award under proviso (b) to
Section 18 (2) of the Act means from the date of applicant’s knowledge of
passing of the award.
12/13
BRMR,J
CRP.Nos.2178 & 2209 of 2022
22.5 The decisions cited by the learned counsel for petitioner are
distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the ratio of
those cases would not apply in the present case on hand, in view of the
fact that the respondent No.1 has complied the twin test there by
reference is made under Section 18 by the Land Acquisition Officer.
23.1 In Union of India5 the Supreme Court observed that “the award
of the Collector is an offer made on behalf of the State and therefore,
under law, the State cannot question the correctness of the award
determined by the Land Acquisition Officer”.
23.2 In Sharda Devi6, the Supreme Court observed that the scheme
of the Act reveals that the remedy of a reference under section 18 is
intended to be available only to a ‘person interested’. The definition of
‘person interested’ speaks of ‘an interest in compensation to be made’.
23.3 In Surinder Kaur7, the Supreme Court held that the award
passed by the Reference Court cannot be modified in the execution
proceedings.
23.4 In Timmaraju Shakuntala Devi8, the High Court held that
reference application shall be made within two months from the receipt of
compensation.
13/13
BRMR,J
CRP.Nos.2178 & 2209 of 2022
23.5 The decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondents
are applicable to the case on hand.
24. On reading of the order passed by the learned Trial Court, this Court
is of the view that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the
contentions raised by the petitioner in proper prospective and assigned
cogent reasons in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. In
view of the reasons above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has
not made out any case to interfere with the orders passed by the learned
Trial Court. CRPs lack merits and the same are liable to be dismissed and
are accordingly dismissed.
25. CRP.Nos.2178 and 2209 of 2022 are dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Interim orders if any stands vacated, miscellaneous petitions shall
stand closed.
_____________________________________
JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
02.04.2026
Dua
