Telangana High Court
Umma Reddy Bharathi vs The State Of Telangana on 7 July, 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 2354 of 2018
Date: 07.07.2026
Between:
Umma Reddy Bharathi .... Petitioner
AND
State of Telangana
Rep, by its Principal Secretary
Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department,
Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad and others .... Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, is filed by the petitioner herein, with the following relief:
“…to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in
the nature of a writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the
respondents in not paying the compensation for the land acquired in
Sy. No. 768/aa to an extent of Ac. 0-20 gts. and house site bearing
H.No. 1-21 to an extent of Ac. 0-04 gts. in Cheerlavancha Village,
Thangallapally Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District as illegal, void and
unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 21 and 300-A of the
Constitution of India, and to consequently direct the respondents to
pay compensation together with exemplary damages, forthwith, under
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013…”
BRIEF FACTS:
2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband, late Umma
Reddy Raji Reddy was the absolute owner and possessor of
-2-
VRKR,J
WP_2354_2018agricultural lands in Sy. No. 768 admeasuring a total extent of
Ac.2.39 guntas in Cheerlavancha Village, Sircilla Mandal (presently
Thangallapally Mandal), Rajanna Sircilla District (erstwhile
Karimnagar District). The said Village along with 12 other villages
fall within the submergence Zone of the Mid Maneru Dam Project.
The acquisition proceedings were initiated by invoking the urgency
provisions under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The Draft Notification under Section 4(1) was published in the A.P.
Gazette No. 9 dated 11.06.2007, followed by the Draft Declaration
under Section 6 in Gazette No. 10 dated 12.06.2007.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the compensation was paid
in respect of other portion of lands acquired except for an extent of
Ac.0.20 guntas in Sy. No. 768/aa and house site bearing No.1-21
to an extent of Ac.0.04 guntas. The petitioner’s husband made
representation dated 25.10.2008 to the respondent No. 3, seeking
payment of compensation in respect of aforesaid extents. The
husband of the petitioner passed away on 02.10.2011 and partial
compensation of Rs.90,000/- was paid in 2012 in respect of 0.03
guntas in Sy. No. 768/aa. The petitioner made subsequent
representations on 06.10.2016 and 06.03.2017, followed by a
representation dated 08.05.2017 to the respondent No. 4 and 5 in
-3-
VRKR,J
WP_2354_2018
the Prajavani meeting, seeking compensation for the remaining
land to an extent Ac.0.20 guntas in Sy. No.768/aa.
4. It is further stated that the house site bearing No. 1-21 was
surveyed pursuant to a representation dated 18.05.2012, and the
surveyor submitted a report dated 21.08.2012, but no steps were
thereafter taken to disburse compensation for the said house site
or for the balance land in Sy. No. 768. It is the case of the
petitioner that compensation was paid in respect of the house sites
bearing Nos. 1-20, 1-21 and 1-21/1, except for house site bearing
No. 1-21 to an extent of Ac.0-04 guntas. It is further the case of
the petitioner that the acquisition was carried out invoking the
urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act 1894, and 80% of the
estimated compensation was not paid as required under Section
17(3)(3-A)(a) of the said Act. Further, as per Section 17(5)(a) &(b) of
the Act,1894, since possession of the subject land was not taken
within three months from the date of the declaration, the
respondents were bound to conduct an enquiry under Section 5-A,
which was not done. Moreover, the respondents were obliged under
Section 11-A of the Act 1894, to pass the award within two years
from the date of the last mode of publication of the declaration,
dated 25.06.2007, which means that the award ought to have been
passed by 24.06.2009. No award was passed within that period.
-4-
VRKR,J
WP_2354_2018
5. A Draft Award in respect of the subject property was
eventually passed vide Award No. Nil/2016-17, File No.
B/221/2007-III-Patta, dated Nil-08-2016, awarding compensation
of Rs.2,29,295/- each to the petitioner and respondent Nos. 7 to 9,
totalling Rs.9,17,180/-, in respect of 2420 sq.yds. (Ac.0-20 guntas)
in Sy. No. 768. Despite the award having been passed in August
2016, no Award Notice under Section 37(2) of the Act, 2013 (Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, hereinafter “Act 30 of
2013”) was served on the petitioner or respondent Nos. 7 to 9, and
the compensation amounts were not paid till date. The petitioner
and respondents No.7 to 9 made successive representations in
2016, 2017 and most recently on 01.04.2026 to the respondent
No.4 and 5, seeking payment of the awarded compensation and
also requesting a reference under Section 64 of the Act, 2013, to
the competent authority for determination of the correct market
value and enhancement of compensation with respect to the
subject property.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Land
Acquisition by way of a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 to 6 states as follows:
-5-
VRKR,J
WP_2354_2018
a) The respondents submit that the land in Survey No. 768,
admeasuring Ac. 2.39 guntas of Cheerlavancha Village, was
acquired pursuant to notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and
6 of the Land Acquisition Act in June 2007. They state that the
petitioner’s family-owned Ac. 0.20 guntas of agricultural land and
0.03 guntas of dwelling area in the said survey number. In
addition, separate notifications were issued in February 2009 for
acquisition of dwelling areas covered by Door Nos. 1-20, 1-21, and
1-21/1. An award was passed on dated 29.02.2016 in respect of
424.02 square yards of dwelling area with the structures under
Door Nos. 1-20 and 1-21, and compensation of Rs. 32,02,659/-
was paid to the petitioner through bank transfer. The respondents
further state that compensation for the petitioner’s dwelling area
measuring 0.03 guntas under House No. 9-93 has also been paid,
while House No. 1-21/1 stands in the name of another individual
Ummareddy Venkat Ramana Reddy.
b) The respondents further explain that following the
reorganization of Land Acquisition Units in the State of Telangana,
the pending acquisition work relating to Cheerlavancha Village was
transferred to the office of the respondent No.4. During the shifting
of records, the data regarding pending acquisitions and
compensation was not made available by the previous Land
-6-
VRKR,J
WP_2354_2018
Acquisition Officer. As a result, compensation for the remaining Ac.
0.20 guntas of agricultural land in Sy No. 768 could not be
disbursed earlier. It is further stated that a draft award had
already been proposed on dated 23.08.2016 under the RFCTLARR
Act for the said extent of land and that the respondent No.4 is
presently ready to determine and pay the award compensation in
accordance with law after following the prescribed procedure.
7. Heard Sri Arjun Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Smt. Jhansi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.7
to 9 and Sri P. Vijay Kumar learned Assistant Government Pleader
for Land Acquisition. Perused the record
8. In the light of the rival pleadings and submissions made by
the learned counsel on either side, the following points arise for
determination:
(i) Whether the petitioner and/or respondent Nos.7 to 9
are entitled to receive the compensation payable in respect of
Ac.0.20 guntas of land in Sy.No.768 covered by Award No.
Nil/2016-17 dated Nil-08-2016, and if so to what relief?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to invoke Section 64
of Act 30 of 2013 for determination of the market value and
enhancement of compensation?
-7-
VRKR,J
WP_2354_2018
ANALYSIS:
9. The material on record discloses that an Award No.
Nil/2016-17 was passed in the month of August 2016, by the
Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit-VIII, LMD Colony, Karimnagar,
determining compensation of Rs.2,29,295/- each to the petitioner
and respondent Nos. 7 to 9, totaling Rs.9,17,180/-, in respect of
Ac.0-20 guntas in Sy.No.768 in Cheerlavancha Village. The
respondent Nos.1 to 6 themselves admitted in the counter affidavit
that the award has been passed and also expressed their readiness
to disburse the award amount. However, despite the lapse of nearly
a decade from the date of the award, the compensation admittedly
remains unpaid. The petitioner has placed on record several
representations submitted to the respondents seeking payment of
the awarded amount, but the respondents have failed to take any
effective steps for its disbursement. The inaction of the
respondents in failing to pay compensation under a duly passed
award constitutes a clear violation of the constitutional guarantee
under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The prolonged
withholding of compensation for nearly two decades after
deprivation of property amounts to an unconstitutional deprivation
of property and cannot be countenanced. In the present case, the
respondents have neither disputed their liability nor offered any
legally sustainable explanation for the continued non-payment of
-8-
VRKR,J
WP_2354_2018
compensation. Consequently, the petitioner and Respondent Nos.7
to 9 are entitled to immediate disbursement of the compensation
determined under Award No. Nil/2016-17.
Entitlement to reference u/s.64 of the Act, 2013:
10. Section 64 of the Act 2013 confers upon every person
interested in an award, the right to make a written application to
the Collector to refer the matter to the Authority, if such person
objects to the measurement of land, the amount of compensation,
the persons to whom the compensation is payable, or the
apportionment of compensation. This is a statutory right and
cannot be denied to a person interested who objects to the amount
of compensation or other matters specified under Section 64. The
materials placed before the Court discloses that the petitioner and
the unofficial respondents have consistently asserted that the
compensation awarded is grossly inadequate. According to them,
although compensation of Rs.2,29,295/- has been awarded to each
claimant, the prevailing market value of the acquired land is
substantially higher. Therefore, they sought a reference under
Section 64 of Act 30 of 2013 for determination of the correct
market value and enhancement of compensation.
11. The record further reveals that the award itself came to be
passed only in the year 2016 i.e., several years after the initiation
-9-
VRKR,J
WP_2354_2018
of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
and even thereafter the compensation was remained unpaid. In
these circumstances, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner has
accepted the award or waived her statutory right to seek
enhancement. On the contrary, her repeated representations
questioning both the non-payment and the inadequacy of
compensation clearly demonstrate that petitioner has consistently
disputed the award. The petitioner and respondent Nos.7 to 9 are,
therefore, entitled to invoke the remedy under Section 64 of Act 30
of 2013.
Limitation for reference under Section 64 of Act 30 of 2013
12. This is the pivotal question, which requires careful
consideration. A similar question arose under the corresponding
provision contained in Section 18 of the Act, 1894, in two decisions
of this Court, which bear directly on the present controversy. In
Surisetti Lakshmi and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and
another 1, a learned Judge of this Court held that the limitation for
an application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, commences from
the date on which the claimant receives notice of the award under
Section 12(2) of that Act, and that in the absence of service of such
notice, there can be no clear, definite or effective starting point for
1 2012 SCC OnLine AP 767
-10-
VRKR,J
WP_2354_2018
reckoning limitation. Relying upon the Full Bench decision in
Special Deputy Collector, Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. v. Dasari
Ramulu 2, it was held that mere knowledge of the award cannot
commence the period of limitation, and that the limitation cannot
run against the claimant in the absence of service of a statutory
notice. It was further held that effective knowledge of the award
can only be attributed to the owner of the land when the owner
actually receives the compensation and becomes aware of the
contents of the award, and that an application filed within the
stipulated time from the date of receipt of compensation must be
held to be within limitation.
13. In G. Dasarath Bai and others v. Greater Hyderabad
Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and another 3, this Court
observed that the very object of the notice contemplated under
Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is to inform the
landowner about the passing of the award and enable him to
receive compensation, with or without protest. The Court further
held that the protest contemplated under the Act can be recorded
only when compensation is actually received, and if compensation
itself has not been paid, the occasion to record protest does not
arise. The Court also observed that delay in receiving
2 2000 (2) ALD 418 (FB)
3 2012 SCC OnLine AP 920
-11-
VRKR,J
WP_2354_2018
compensation should not come in the way of a person seeking a
reference where the application is made within the time stipulated
under Section 18(2)(a) or (b), reckoned from the date of receipt of
compensation.
14. The ratio of both the aforesaid decisions is applicable to the
facts of the present case under the Act, 2013. Section 37(2) of the
Act, 2013 mandates the Collector to serve a copy of the award on
every person, whose land has been acquired. It is the admitted
position on record that no Award Notice under Section 37(2) of the
Act 2013 was ever served on the petitioner or respondent Nos. 7
to 9. The award was passed in August 2016, but the compensation
was never paid, and no notice of the award was served on the
petitioner or respondent Nos.7 to 9. In these circumstances, the
claim of the petitioner cannot be said to be barred by limitation,
since the starting point for reckoning the period prescribed under
the Act has not yet commenced, in the absence of service of the
statutory notice and receipt of compensation. The application for
reference filed by the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 to 9 vide
representation dated 01.04.2026 is, therefore, well within time and
cannot be shut out on grounds of limitation.
-12-
VRKR,J
WP_2354_2018
RESULT:
15. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, the
respondents are directed as under:
i) The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 shall forthwith disburse the
compensation awarded under Award No. Nil/2016-17, File No.
B/221/2007-III-Patta, dated Nil-08-2016, in respect of land
admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas in Sy. No. 768, Cheerlavancha
Village, Thangallapally Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District, in equal
shares to the petitioners and respondent Nos.7 to 9, each being
entitled to a sum of Rs.2,29,295/-.
(ii) The Land Acquisition Officer (respondent No. 4) shall make a
reference under Section 64 of the Act 2013 to the competent
authority in respect of the aforesaid land within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, for
determination of market value and enhancement of corporation in
accordance with law.
(iii) Upon receipt of such reference being made by the Land
Acquisition Officer, the competent authority shall issue notice to
the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 to 9 afford them a reasonable
opportunity of hearing, consider their claims on their own merits
and in accordance with law and pass and pass appropriate orders
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of reference
-13-
VRKR,J
WP_2354_2018and communicate the same to the petitioner and respondent Nos.7
to 9. It is made it clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the claim for enhancement of
compensation.
(iv) There shall be no order as to costs.
(v) As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
___________________________________
VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J
Date: 07.07.2026
AS
