Telangana High Court
Yava Narsaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 23 April, 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.1092 OF 2019
Date: 23.04.2026
BETWEEN:
Yava Narsaiah and others .... Petitioners
And
The State of Telangana, rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Irrigation and
Command Area Development,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ... Respondents
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a
declaration that the action of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in not
paying the compensation in respect of the lands acquired from the
petitioners, pursuant to the Notification issued under Section 4 (1)
and the Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, on par with the patta lands, inspite of submitting the written
representations dt. 25.10.2017 and 27.06.2018, as illegal,
arbitrary and unjust and consequently, direct the respondent
authorities to pay the compensation to the petitioners as per their
entitlement on par with the patta lands and to pass such other
order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
-2-
2. Heard Sri G. Chandan Raj, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner and Sri Cherukuri Ravi Kumar, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the respondents.
BRIEF FACTS
3. The case of the petitioners, as set out in the affidavit filed in
support of the writ petition is as under:
a) The petitioners are landless poor persons and that the
Government, after conducting a socio-economic survey and in
accordance with law, assigned lands to them in various survey
numbers namely, Sy. Nos. 2, 68, 981, 1164, 1053/2, 1053/3,
1060/2, 1060/3, 90 and 92 admeasuring Ac.5.07, 3.06, 2.26,
0.00, 0.10, 0.08, 0.12, 3.00, 2.20, 2.05, 2.25, 2.23½ and 2.23½
guntas situated at Ganneruvaram Village and Mandal, Karimnagar
District. Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds were also issued in
their favour by the Revenue Authorities as per law and that they
have been eking out their livelihood by cultivating the said lands.
b) While so, the Government proposed acquisition of an extent
of Ac.314.10 guntas in the village limits of Ganneruvaram for the
purpose of the Lower Manair Dam Reservoir, out of which an
extent of Ac.37.16 guntas comprised assigned lands. Pursuant
thereto, a Draft Notification under Section 4(1) and Draft
-3-Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short ‘the Act’) came to be issued by the respondent No.4, duly
approved by the Government and published in the then A.P.
Gazette, Part-I, Extraordinary No.223. Thereafter, Award
No.03/1983-84 vide proceedings No.C/302/81 dated 13-07-1983
was also passed. However, the compensation under the said award
was restricted only to patta lands while assigned lands were
deferred from the award.
c) It is the specific case of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that though it is stated in the counter that petitioner
Nos.4 to 6 were already paid compensation, there is no whisper
about the payment of said compensation to the petitioner Nos.1 to
3 or their ancestors. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation as held by the larger Bench of this Court in LAO-
cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Domalguda,
Hyderabad and others v. Mekala Pandu and others 1.
d) The petitioners place reliance on the decision in State of A.P.
v. P. Peda Chinnayya 2 wherein it was observed that when assigned
lands are acquired for public purpose, assignees are entitled to
compensation including market value, solatium, additional market
value and interest on par with private patta lands. They also rely
1 2004 (2) ALD 451
2 1997 (1) ALT 498 (FB)
-4-
on G.O.Ms.No.601, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated
16.12.2013, which provides for payment of compensation in the
shape of ex-gratia on par with private patta lands where assigned
lands are resumed for public purposes. It is the case of the
petitioners that their lands, which are the only source of their
livelihood, were acquired in the year 1980 and thereby reducing
them to manual labour. The petitioners contend that they
approached the authorities on several occasions seeking payment
of compensation and finally submitted written representations on
25.10.2017 and 27.06.2018 to respondent Nos.3 and 4 reiterating
their claim for payment of compensation on par with private patta
lands. As no tangible response was forthcoming, the petitioners
approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India by way of present writ petition.
4. The brief averments of the counter affidavit filed by
Respondent No.4 are as under:
a) The Government assigned lands in Sy.Nos.1053/2, 1060/2
and 1246 covering an extent of Ac.1.39 guntas and ceiling surplus
assigned lands in Sy.Nos.90 and 92 to an extent of Ac.10.10
guntas and Ac.5.07 guntas respectively, were involved in the
acquisition. It is further stated that the lands submerged under the
LMD Reservoir within 910 contour line were not included in Award
-5-No.3/83-84 dated 13-07-1983 in file No.C/302/81 as detailed
enquiry was required in respect of such submergence.
Subsequently, Award No.8/84-85 dated 29-03-1985 in file
No.D/302/81, was passed acquiring Ac.3.36 acres including
Government assigned lands, which had been deferred earlier.
Thereafter, ex-gratia proposals in respect of ceiling surplus
assigned lands in Sy.Nos.90 and 92 to an extent of Ac.15.17
guntas amounting to Rs.2,12,556/- were submitted to the Special
Collector, Tarnaka, Hyderabad vide letter No.D/224/94 dated 02-
11-1995 and, upon receipt of sanction orders, ex-gratia was
distributed among the assignees by way of banker’s cheques.
b) It is further contended that lands in Sy.Nos.68, 981 and
1164 to an extent of Ac.4.06 guntas, Ac.1.29 guntas and Ac.1.18
guntas respectively, along with other lands in Ganneruvaram
Village and Mandal, were notified under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 followed by a Declaration under Section 6 of
the Act. The acquisition culminated in Award No.43/1990-91
dated 30.03.1991 in file No.D/263/89. It is asserted that
compensation was paid to landowners or interested persons and
that compensation was not restricted only to patta lands. It is
further contended that the then Land Acquisition Officer and
Special Deputy Collector already considered payment of
-6-
compensation to Government and surplus assigned lands on par
with private patta lands about three decades ago and that the
present writ petition filed after a long lapse of time is not tenable.
c) In support of his contention, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader relied upon the judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court in the case of Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley and
others 3 wherein it has been categorically held by the Honourable
Supreme Court that a writ petition filed after inordinate delay is
liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, as a
person who sleeps over his rights cannot seek extraordinary relief
under Article 226 of the Constitution, since delay defeats equity.
Thus, it is contended that in view of the above grounds, the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. In reply to the counter affidavit, the petitioners filed a reply
affidavit reiterating that the agricultural lands bearing
Sy.No.981/A&B (wet single crop) admeasuring Ac.3.06 guntas,
Sy.No.68 dry measuring Ac.7.11 guntas and Sy.No.1164 dry
admeasuring Ac.2.26 guntas, were partly patta lands retained by
the original owner and partly ceiling surrendered surplus lands
which were assigned to landless poor persons and were involved in
the acquisition. It is further submitted that the lands were
3 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 318
-7-
originally private patta lands, attracted by the provisions of the
A.P. Land Reforms (COAH) Act, 1973, surrendered by the surplus
holder to the Government and thereafter assigned to landless poor
persons belonging to backward class community. While denying
the allegations in the counter affidavit except those specifically
admitted, the petitioners reiterated their entitlement to
compensation on par with private patta lands.
POINTS FOR THE DETERMINATION:
6. On the basis of the pleadings, rival contentions and the
material placed before this Court, the following issues arise for
consideration:
i) Whether the petitioners being assignees of Government
Land are entitled for compensation on par with holders of
private patta lands, upon acquisition for a public purpose?
ii) Whether failure of the respondent authorities to
consider the petitioners’ representations seeking such
compensation vitiates the acquisition proceedings or
warrants interference under Article 226 of the constitution of
India?
iii) Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on
the ground of delay and latches?
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
7. At the outset, this Court has carefully considered the
pleadings of both parties and the material placed on record. It is
-8-not in dispute that the lands in question, though assigned, were
acquired for a public purpose i.e., Lower Manair Dam Reservoir
under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
8. The principal grievance of the petitioners is not merely with
respect to entitlement for the compensation, but rather the
inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in failing to
consider their claim for compensation on par with patta lands,
despite submission of representations dated 25.10.2017 and
27.06.2018.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the
authoritative pronouncement of the larger Bench of this Court in
Mekala Pandu‘s case (supra), wherein it was categorically held that
the assignees of government lands are entitled to compensation
equivalent to full market value and all attendant benefits on par
with full landowners. It is submitted that the aforesaid principle
has been consistently followed and reaffirmed by subsequent
decisions of this Court. In particular the Judgment of Division
Bench in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer,
Ranga Reddy District and another v. Narayan Swamy (Died) Per LRs
Smt. B. Laxmamma and Others 4, wherein while following Mekala
Pandu‘s case (supra) it was reiterated that the assignees have to be
4 2022 (6) ALT 262 (D.B.)
-9-
treated as full owners of the land and they are entitled to
compensation based on the market value along with other benefits
on par with full owners.
10. It is to be noted that the distinction between general
administrative action and consideration of an individual claim is of
significance, and the latter cannot be presumed in the absence of a
clear decision reflecting application of mind.
11. The law consistently recognizes that when a specific claim is
made by a citizen, particularly in matters relating to deprivation of
property, the authority concerned is duty-bound to consider such
claim objectively and pass a reasoned and speaking order in
accordance with law. Consideration of a representation is not an
empty formality and it requires due application of mind,
examination of relevant facts, and taking a decision supported by
reasons. The requirement to pass a reasoned and speaking order
ensures transparency, enables the affected party to understand the
basis of the decision, and facilitates judicial review. Failure to
consider a representation or to pass a reasoned order results in
arbitrariness, offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
12. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that such
non-consideration assumes greater significance in the context of
-10-
land acquisition proceedings. Acquisition of land results in
deprivation of property, and though the right to property is no
longer a fundamental right, it still continues to be a valuable
constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Any deprivation thereof must be in accordance with a just, fair and
reasonable procedure. The concept of fairness in this context is not
confined merely to the issuance of notifications or passing of
awards, but extends to the entire process, including determination
and disbursement of compensation and consideration of claims
raised by the affected persons.
13. As regards the objection of delay and the laches, it is true
that belated challenges to acquisition proceedings are ordinarily
not entertained. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents relied on Kallem
Chandra Reddy and Others V. Union of India and Others 5, wherein
the petitioners allowed the land acquisition process to conclude,
including passing of awards, and approached the Court after an
inordinate delay of about four years. The Court held that such writ
petitions suffer from delay and laches, and belated challenges to
acquisition proceedings cannot be entertained. Similarly, in
Mrinmoy Maity‘s case (supra) it was held by the Honourable
Supreme Court that a litigant, who sleeps over his rights and
5 W.P. Nos. 7617, 7622 & 7623 of 2010 (TSHC: decided on 14.02.2024).
-11-
approaches the Court after undue delay is not entitled to
discretionary relief under Article 226, as delay defeats equity and
may itself, be a ground for dismissal.
14. However, the aforesaid principle is not absolute. In cases
involving illiterate or economically weaker sections, particularly
where the grievance relates to non-payment or improper
determination of compensation, the Court may adopt a more liberal
approach. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners
placed reliance upon the decision of the High Court for the
composite State of Telangana in Mathangi Nagaiah and others v.
State of Andhra Pradesh and others 6, wherein it was held that
illiterate persons like the petitioners cannot be allowed to be
deprived of the compensation to which they are otherwise entitled
in law, merely on the basis of technical pleas such as delay.
15. In the present case, the grievance of the petitioners pertains
to non-consideration of their claim for compensation. Such a
grievance in the considered view of this Court requires examination
by the competent authority in accordance with law. At the same
time, this Court refrains from expressing any opinion on the merits
of the petitioners’ claim, as the same would require examination of
6 2018 (6) ALD 662
-12-
factual aspects and application of relevant statutory provisions and
Government policies.
CONCLUSION:
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met by
directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation
submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law, within
stipulated time frame.
RESULT AND DIRECTIONS:
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following
directions:
i) The respondent No.4 i.e., the Land Acquisition Officer – cum
– Special Deputy Collector, Karimnagar shall consider the
representations dated 25.10.2017 and 27.06.2018 submitted by
the petitioners in accordance with law.
ii) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of
three (03) months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iii) The decision so taken shall be communicated to the
petitioners.
-13-
iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on merits of the claim, and all issues are left open to be
decided by the competent authority independently and on its own
merits and in accordance with law.
___________________________________
VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J
Date: 23.04.2026
AS