HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

* * * *

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS

WRIT APPEAL Nos:849 & 850 OF 2026

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 30.07.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

&

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals

Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the

fair copy of the Judgment?

Yes/No

____________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

___________________________________ __

PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI ,J

2

Date of reserved for orders :21.07.2026

Date of pronouncement :30.07.2026

Date of uploading : 30.07.2026

APHC010359262026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3601]

THURSDAY, THE 30

th

DAY OF JULY 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI

WRIT APPEAL NO: 849/2026

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the

Impugned order dated 03.07.2026 passed in W.P.No.17814 of 2026 and pass

Between:

1. CHODISETTY NIRMALATHA, W/O. CN. MANMADHA RAO, R/O. 39M7 -

10/2, SIVANANDA STREET, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA ( -

NTR) DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520010.

...APPELLANT

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPL BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF

SECRETARY, REVENUE (LAND ACQUISITION) DEPARTMENT, A.P.

SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT -

522237

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPF BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT (MA AND UD) DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT -522237

3

3. A P CAPITAL REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A P C R D A, REPI

BY ITS COMMISSIONER, RAYAPUDI VILAGE, THULLUR MANDAL,

GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -522237

4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA

PRADESH- 522004

5. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR /THE COMPETENT LAND

ACQUISITION OFFICER LAO, UNIT NO. 9, PENUMAKA VILLAGE,

TADEPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -

522237

6. JOINT COLLECTOR, / PROJECT ADMINSTRATOR. GUNTUR, GUNTUR

DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -522004

...RESPONDENT(S):

WRIT APPEAL NO: 850/2026

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the

Impugned order dated 03.07.2026 passed in W.P.No.17813 of 2026 and pass

Between:

1. GADE HANUMANTHA RAO NAIDU, S/O. G. BALA RAMAMURTHY, R/O.

A5-101, FLORIDA ESTATE, KESAV NAGAR,MAHARASTRA -411036.

2. DANDAMUDI SAMBA SIVA RAO, S/O. FRAMASWAMY, 3 -658/1,

UNDAVALLI, UNDAVALLI (RURAL), GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA

PRADESH, 522501.

3. GURRALA BALA MANI SESHA GOPAL, S/O. G. YEDUKONDALA RAO,

2-193, MAIN ROAD, NEAR SIVALAYAM TEMPLE, UNDDVALLI,

UNDAVALLI (RURAL), GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH,

522501.

4. GURRALA SAI CHITTI BABU, S/O. SRINIVASA RAO, 2 -194/2,

UNDAVALLI, UNDAVALLI (RURAL), GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA

PRADESH, 522501

5. SINGAMSETTI ANUPAMA, W/O. VENKATESWARA R AO, 1-85,

UNDAVALLI. UNDAVALLI (RURAL), GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA

4

PRADESH, 522501.

6. POLISETTY SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O. YEERAIAH, 1 -101, UNDAVALLI,

UNDAVALLI (RURAL), GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH,

522501.

7. MEKAVIJAY KUMAR, S/O. PHARMAREDDY, 3 -70, PENUMAKA,

GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, 522501.

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF

SECRETARY, REVENUE (LAND ACQUISITION) DEPARTMENT A.R

SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT -

522237

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT (MA AND UD) DEPARTMENT A.R SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT -522237

3. A R CAPITAL REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A P C R D A, REP.

BY ITS COMMISSIONER, RAYAPUDI VILAGE, THULLUR MANDAL,

GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -522237

4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR/APPROPRITE AUHTORITY, GUNTUR,

GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -522004

5. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR THE COMPETENT LAND

ACQUISITION OFFICER LAO, UNIT NO. 8, UNDAVALLI VILLAGE,

TADEPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -

522237

6. JOINT COLLECTOR, PROJECT ADMINSTRATOR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR

DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -522004

...RESPONDENT(S):

5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

&

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI

WRIT APPEAL Nos.849 and 850 of 2026

COMMON JUDGEMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

These two Writ Appeal Nos.849 and 850 of 2026 are preferred against the

orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.17814 and 17813 of 2026, dated

03.07.2026 respectively. The Writ Appellants are the Writ Petitioners before the

learned Single Judge. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the Official Respondents.

2. We shall deal with W.A.No.849 of 2026 first which arises out of

W.P.No.17814 of 2026.

3. The writ petition was originally filed seeking the following relief:

“…it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased

to grant a direction or writ more particularly in the nature of Writ

of MANDAMUS declaring

i) the preliminary notification dated 08.01.2026 under

Section 11 of LA&RR Act, 2013, in relation to land of the

Petitioner herein situated in Penumaka village,

ii) the order of the Respondent No.4 vide proceedings

C.No.01/2026-CRDA(Admn)-Penumaka dated 01.06.2026,

rejecting the preliminary objections filed by the Petitioner

herein;

iii) the Notification vide Form-VII declaration Rc. No.01/2026-

CRDA(Admn.) dated 08.06.2026 under Section 19 of Act

30 of 2013 and

iv) the Award enquiry notice dated 12.06.2026 under Section

21 of Act 30 of 2013,

as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the Petitioners'

rights under Article 14, 19, and 300A of the Constitution of India

6

and contrary to the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation

and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 and its rules and to consequently

v) set aside the preliminary notification dated 08.01.2026

under Section 11 of LA&RR Act, 2013; the order of the

Respondent No.4 vide proceedings C.No.01/2026 -

CRDA(Admn)-Penumaka dated 01.06.2026; the

Notification dated 08.06.2026 under Section 19 of Act 30

of 2013 vide Form-VII declaration Rc. No.01/2026-

CRDA(Admn.) and the Award enquiry notice dated

12.06.2026 under Section 21 of Act 30 of 2013

and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in

the interest of justice.”

The brief facts are as follows:

4. The State Government issued a preliminary notification dated

08.01.2026 under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

("the Act") for lands at Undavalli Village, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District.

Respondents have invited preliminary objections, and Respondent No.5

received objections from, among others, the writ appellants. After considering

these objections, Respondent No.5 rejected them and issued a notification

under Section 19(1) of the Act, followed by an award enquiry notice on

12.06.2026. The writ appellants have challenged both the preliminary

notification and the Section 19(1) notification, alleging that the respondents

have not issued the notifications in accordance with the Act. They contend

that Respondent No.5 did not follow the mandatory procedures under

Sections 11, 16, 17, and 18 before issuing the Section 19(1) notification and

that possession of their lands is being taken forcibly under the guise of the

award enquiry notice.

7

5. In light of these allegations, the writ appellants filed the writ petition,

asserting that any attempt to take forcible possession of their property while

the notification is under challenge would violate their constitutional rights

under Article 300-A. They sought interim relief pending the outcome of the writ

petition.

6. At the admission stage, the learned Advocate General, representing

the State, opposed the grant of interim relief. According to the order of the

learned Single Judge, a total of Ac.280.9956 cents is required for the Seed

Access Road. Of this, Ac.274.7416 cents have already been obtained through

the Land Pooling Scheme (LPS). Respondent No.4 initiated the current land

acquisition proceedings to acquire the remaining Ac.10.5018 cents needed to

complete the road infrastructure project. Following the preliminary notification,

an additional Ac.7.7768 cents was acquired through the LPS, leaving only

Ac.2.725 cents to be acquired.

7. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides on 03.07.2026,

passed the following order:

“Heard Mr. K. S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of Mr. Sai Saran Chodisetty, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1, 2 &

4 to 6 and Mrs. S. Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader,

appearing for 3

rd

respondent.

The present Writ Petition assails the preliminary notification dated

08.01.2026, issued under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the orders rejecting

preliminary objections, notification dated 03.06.2026 issued under Section

19 (1) of the Act and followed by the award enquiry notice, dated

06.06.2026.

8

The learned Senior Counsel contends that both preliminary notification

as well as Section 19(1) notification are vitiated on account of following

reasons:

(a). That there is no administrative sanction for issuance of

notification under Section 11(1) of the Act.

(b). No prior survey was conducted in terms of Section 12 of the

Act.

(c). There was no revision of market value in terms of the third

proviso to Section 26 of the Act and lastly, that R & R was not undertaken.

He further contends that Forms A(1) & B(2) issued by the respondents

are defective inasmuch as the details of administrative sanction, cost of

project have not set out therein.

The learned Advocate General, on the other hand, made following

submissions;

(a). that the notification under 19(1) has been issued on 03.06.2026,

followed by award enquiry notice, dated 06.06.2026, scheduling the date of

enquiry on 06.07.2026, only thereafter, petitioners have approached this

Court at 11

th

hour.

(b). Further, the State had issued notification, dated 06.11.2025, under

Section 10(A) of the Act exempting land acquisition proceedings within

capital region for the purpose of conducting social impact assessment and

R&R, etc., which is not under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

(c). Further, it is also contended that price revision and survey were duly

undertaken before issuance of the acquisition proceedings. The petitioners

had indeed participated in the enquiry conducted in terms of Section 15 and

that their objections were duly considered. The scope of enquiry under

Section 15 merely confined to the aspects of determining whether the area

and suitability of land for the purpose of acquisition, besides justification for

public purpose. Inasmuch as already there is an exemption granted under

9

Section 10(A), the other requirement of looking into social impact report

does not arise.

(d). While drawing the attention of this Court to the orders passed in

pursuance to the disposal of the objections, it is stated that as against

Ac.280.9956 cents required for seed access road, Ac.274.7416 cents had

already been taken through the land pooling scheme and the present land

acquisition proceedings were issued to acquire Ac.10.5018 cents for

completion of a road infrastructure project. Further, after issuance of the

preliminary notification, an extent of Ac.7.7768 cents has been taken

through land pooling scheme, thereby the acquisition confining only to

Ac.2.725 cents.

In that view of the matter, it is urged that the respondents would file

detailed counter to the Writ Petition bringing all the above aspects on

record.

Having considered the submissions made by both learned Senior

Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Advocate General appearing

for the respondents and also keeping in view the importance of the project

which is meant for public purpose and that too for formation of seed access

road, that substantial portion of land has already been acquired through

land pooling scheme, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion, it is not

desirable in the public interest to interfere with the ongoing acquisition

proceedings at this stage.

All the legal submissions made above by the respective learned

counsels require deeper examination and cannot be adjudicated at this

interlocutory stage, without filing of a detailed counter-affidavit.

However, it is made clear that the acquisition proceedings and the

consequential award that may be passed shall be subject to final result in

the Writ Petition.

Let counter-affidavit be filed within two (02) weeks. Reply-affidavit, if

any, shall be filed within two (02) weeks thereafter.

10

List on 31.07.2026, for counter-affidavit.”

8. The Writ Appellants, aggrieved by the non-grant of the interim relief as

prayed, have preferred these two appeals independently against the proceedings

of the learned Single Judge dated 03.07.2026.

9. The relief (s) sought under WA 849 of 2026 and WA 850 of 2026 are as

follows:

“In view of the above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court

may be pleased to set aside the Impugned order dated 03.07.2026

passed in W.P.No.17814 of 2026 and pass such other order or orders

as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of

justice.”

10. Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Sai Saran

Chodisetty, represented the appellants in both cases. Sri Dammalapti Srinivas,

learned Advocate General, assisted by Mrs. S. Pranathi, Special Government

Pleader, appeared for the respondents.

Submissions of learned counsels:

11. Learned Senior counsel for the writ appellants, Sri. K. S. Murthy, argued

that the writ petition was filed challenging the impugned preliminary notification,

the proceedings relating to the preliminary enquiry, and the notification issued

under Section 19(1) of the Act, seeking various reliefs. It was contended that the

respondents were making high-handed attempts to take possession of the

property of the writ appellants without following the due procedure established

under the Act. If possession is taken away forcibly, the writ appellants are left

without their land. Therefore, the writ appellants were constrained to approach

the learned Single Judge seeking interim protection by way of stay of acquisition

and dispossession by respondent No.5.

11

12. Learned Senior counsel argued that the learned Single Judge did not fully

consider the appellants' concerns, especially the risk of dispossession by the

respondents. He highlighted discrepancies in the acquisition process, noting that

the preliminary notification was issued in January 2026, but the respondents did

not address the objections until June 2026. Although the appellants submitted

nineteen objections, the District Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer rejected

them without providing a reasoned order. He further submitted that the

notification issued in Form VII under Section 19(1) with Section 25(1) of the Act,

dated 03.06.2026, indicates that the number of Project Displaced

Families/Project Affected Families (PDF/PAF) due to the acquisition is shown as

"Nil" in the translated copy at page No.64 of the material papers.

13. However, in the earlier declaration issued in Form VII under Section 25(1)

of the Act, dated 11.05.2018, relating to the very same extent of land belonging

to the writ appellants, Respondent No.4 had specifically noted that 16 families

were likely to be rehabilitated and resettled due to the proposed acquisition. It

was also stated that three cattle sheds would be affected, and that 329 families,

including PDF’s, were likely to be impacted.

14. Learned counsel emphasized this inconsistency, noting that the 2018

declaration recognized that 16 families would require rehabilitation and 329

families would be affected, including the writ appellants. Despite these findings,

the Government has not implemented any rehabilitation and resettlement

scheme as required by the Act. Additionally, there is no disclosure of the

rehabilitation and resettlement summary in the office of the Land Acquisition

Officer, Undavalli.

15. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the administrative

sanction for the project by the requiring authority was not obtained as required by

Rule 3 of the LA&RR Rules, 2014 for which Form-I has been prescribed. As per

appendix-III of Form-I under Rule 3, it is to be clearly mentioned that the project

12

for which the land is sought to be acquired had been administratively approved

vide department letter No. and dated. He submitted that as per the document

(Certificate) annexed, no number nor the date of any such administrative

approval has been mentioned. So, in the absence of any administrative approval

certificate, the acquisition could not be proceeded with.

16. According to learned Senior Counsel, the respondents' actions constitute a

forcible violation of the writ appellants' constitutional and statutory rights. He

therefore requested that, given the refusal of interim relief, the intervention of this

appellate court is necessary to protect the appellants' rights.

17. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the right to property is a

constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. No person

shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The deprivation can be

by the authority given under the LA&RR Act, 2013, but for that the established

procedure is also to be followed.

18. Learned senior counsel for the appellants placed reliance in Premji Nathu

vs. State of Gujarat and another

1

and Dhanjaya Reddy vs. State of

Karnataka

2

. He contended that it is a settled principle of law that where a power

is given to do a certain thing in a certain manner, the thing must be done in that

way or not at all. Placing reliance on Premji Nathu (supra), he submitted that

what needs to be emphasized is that along with the notice issued under Section

12(2) of the LA&RR Act, 2013, the landowner who is not present or is not

represented before the Collector at the time of making of award should be

1

(2012) 5 SCC 250

2

(2001) 4 SCC 9

13

supplied with a copy thereof so that he may effectively exercise his right under

Section 18(1) to seek reference to the Court.

19. The learned Advocate General, Sri. Sri Dammalapti Srinivas, refuted the

submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the writ appellants. He

submitted that the acquisition is for the E-3 Seed Access Road, which was

intended to provide connectivity to the Capital City Region and its road

infrastructure, including connecting corridors, which squarely falls within the

definition of a public purpose under Section 2 of the Act. The acquisition is not for

any private benefit or commercial exploitation. It is for the public at large.

20. Learned Advocate General further submitted that an extent of Ac.280.9956

cents is required for the Seed Access Road project, out of which Ac.274.7416

cents has already been obtained through the Land Pooling Scheme (LPS). Major

portions of the road have already been laid and are in use. The present

acquisition pertains only to the remaining residual extent required for completion

of the road alignment.

21. He further argued that the writ appellants' interference is hindering

completion of the public project. As the project serves the public interest, the

State is entitled under the Act to acquire the remaining land. Most of the required

land has already been obtained through the LPS, and the Government has

complied with all mandatory procedures under Sections 15, 16, 17, and 18. The

learned Advocate General emphasised that restraining the progress of a public

interest project is not justified. In this case, landowners have voluntarily

contributed land. Considering these factors, the learned Single Judge declined to

grant interim relief and held that the acquisition proceedings are subject to the

outcome of the writ petition, as certain additional documents were required to be

placed before the Court.

14

22. Recording the said submission, the matter was adjourned and thereafter

this Court, by its order dated 17.07.2026 in W.A.No.849 of 2026, directed the

Respondents to maintain the position as maintained under the proceedings dated

16.07.2026 until the next date of listing. Accordingly, interim protection regarding

possession is continued.

23. In the course of further hearing, the writ appellants as well as the

respondents have filed additional affidavits bringing forth the developments that

took place after 03.07.2026.

Further submissions of both the learned counsels:

24. The learned counsel for the writ appellants submitted that, in respect of the

subject property under Writ Appeal No.850 of 2026, the possession has already

been taken over to some extent and that only the remaining extent of land is

involved in W.A.No.849 of 2026. He submitted that Respondent No. 4 has taken

possession during the pendency of the writ appeal. Therefore, no grievance

survives in the said writ appeal except challenging the award, particularly relating

to the determination of compensation.

25. Learned counsel submitted that, regarding W.A.No.849 of 2026, this Court,

after recording the submission of the learned Advocate General on 16.07.2026,

directed the respondents to maintain the status of possession as of that date.

The Court subsequently extended the interim order, so the writ appellants

continue to possess the property under appeal.

26. Learned counsel for the writ appellants filed an additional affidavit along

with photographs of the subject property and submitted that the photographs

disclose the developments that took place during the interregnum, after the order

dated 03.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge declining to grant interim

relief. According to the writ appellants, the subsequent developments clearly

15

demonstrate that Respondent No. 4 took possession during the pendency of the

proceedings, which is against the principles of law.

27. The learned Advocate General submitted that an award under the Act has

already been passed on 10.07.2026, and the respondents sent the award to the

appellants. But they refused to receive the same. Respondents have stated that

the award was determined under the Act and a cheque representing the award

amount, dated 10.07.2026, had been forwarded to the writ appellants. However,

the writ appellants refused to receive the award amount. He submitted that once

an award is passed, any grievance as to the quantum of award has to be

challenged under the provisions of the Act. The grievances of the appellants are

protected under the law.

28. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the learned Single

Judge found the issues raised are disputed questions demanding detailed

examination and thus declined to resolve them at the interlocutory stage.

Therefore, the learned Judge declined to grant interim relief, and categorically

ordered that the acquisition proceedings and any award would remain subject to

the outcome of the writ petition.

29. It is further submitted that, by the time the impugned order was passed, the

respondents had not filed their counter-affidavit. The learned Single Judge

specifically granted two weeks to the respondents to file their counter-affidavit

and permitted the writ petitioners to file a reply affidavit, if any, within two weeks

thereafter. The respondents have not filed their counter, as the time granted was

up to 31.07.2026. Due to the filing of these appeals, Respondents could not file

counters. The period is up to 31.07.2026. It is further submitted that, by order

dated 17.07.2026, an interim status quo was granted, providing no immediate

risk to the writ petitioners or appellants.

30. The learned Advocate General contended that it is not the case of the

respondents that the land has been forcibly taken. Respondents are acquiring

16

land for the development of the Capital Region and for construction of the Seed

Access Road, which is an essential infrastructure project in the public interest.

Thus, no interference is required in the order under appeal.

31. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the learned single Judge

has passed the order dated 03.07.2026 on consideration of the various factors.

Considering the public purpose and that the petitioners’ land as involved therein

was very meager when compared to the total land for the project for the seed

access road; declined to grant the interim order as was prayed by the writ

petitioners/appellants. He submitted that the exercise of the writ appellant’s

jurisdiction no interference was required in the discretion exercised by the

learned single Judge. He placed reliance in the case of Dalpat Kumar and

another vs. Prahlad Singh and others

3

to contend further that the grounds on

which the interference can be made are not available in the present appeal. The

impugned order neither suffers from perversity nor any settled principle of law

regulating the grant of refusal of interlocutory injections has been ignored.

32. Learned Advocate General placed reliance in Kolkata Municipal

Corporation and another vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and others

4

, and referred to

seven principles laid down in the said case in land acquisition matters. He also

placed reliance in Jayabheri Properties Private Limited and other vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh and others

5

and contended that in that case also the major

stretch of the outer ring road, only a small stretch involved the plots of the

appellants, therein. That factor is relevant which was taken into consideration by

the Apex Court in declining to interfere with the orders of the High Court.

33. The learned Advocate General also placed reliance in the Estate Officer,

Haryana Urban Development Authority and others vs. Nirmala Devi in Civil

3

1993(1) SCC 325

4

(2024) 10 SCC 533

5

(2010) 5 SCC 590

17

Appeal No.7707 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025 to contend that the allotment of plots

as oustees only, cannot be claimed as a matter of right and ordinarily,

rehabilitation should only be meant for those persons who have been rendered

destitute because of loss of residence or livelihood as a consequence of land

acquisition.

34. Heard learned Senior Counsel for writ appellants, Sri K.S. Murthy, with

Assisting counsels and Learned Advocate General, Sri Dammalapti Srinivas

along with Mrs.S. Pranathi. We have also perused the material on record.

Discussion:

35. We have noted that the prompting for appeal is the refusal of the learned

Single Judge to grant any interim relief, pending the writ petition which, according

to the appellants, has prompted a serious threat of dispossession leading to this

appeal.

36. The appellants' grievance is that when there are clear violations of the

mandatory provisions governing land acquisition, the acquisition proceedings

themselves become illegal; thus, under the garb of the proceedings,

Respondents cannot dispossess them. The illegality vitiates the notification itself;

consequently, the acquisition.

37. Respondents' case is that it is a public project; except Ac.2.725 cents of

land, Respondents have taken the other extent of land Ac.7.7768 cents under the

LPS – land pooling scheme. The process began in January 2026 following due

procedure; compensation for land is properly assessed under the Act. Amounts

for rehabilitation and resettlement have been earmarked for affected families. As

to the respondents, after the Writ Petition proceedings dated 03.07.2026, their

objections were rejected, due procedure was followed, and an award of

compensation was passed. A cheque for Rs.85,64,361/- and another amount of

Rs.1,26,65,042/- were kept ready but not disbursed as the appellants refused

18

them. The amount was deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer. Due to the

writ appellants' obstruction, road works are halted for a small portion; otherwise,

completion would have occurred. Rehabilitation measures under the Act have

been undertaken.

38. These developments occurred during the pendency of these appeals and

were not before the learned Single Judge at the time of the interim order. The

learned Single Judge, based on the facts then available, provided that all actions

would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

39. The additional affidavits show that possession of the property under Writ

Appeal No.850 of 2026 has already been taken, and an award of compensation

has been passed under the Act. Therefore, relief against dispossession in Writ

Appeal No.850 of 2026 does not arise, a point fairly conceded by learned

counsel for the appellant.

40. In Writ Appeal No.849 of 2026, interim protection regarding the scheduled

property as proposed in this appeal remains in place.

41. The learned Advocate General argued that this interim protection is

hindering project progress, contending that all legal formalities have been

followed and that further extension of the interim order would adversely affect the

project. He requested that the interim order be vacated and the W.A No.849 of

2026 be dismissed.

42. We are of the view that the submissions advanced by the learned counsel

for the appellants with respect to not following the procedure for acquisition of the

land under the LA&RR Act, 2013, cannot be said to be not relevant for

consideration on merits of the case. Learned single Judge while passing the

order dated 03.07.2026 also noted down the submissions advanced before him

by the learned senior counsel for the appellants as also learned Advocate

General, and on consideration of those submissions, observed that “all the legal

19

submissions made above by the respective counsels require deeper examination

and cannot be adjudicated at this interlocutory stage without filing of detailed

counter affidavit”. The learned single Judge granted time to file the counter

affidavit and the reply affidavit fixing 31.07.2026 in the writ petitions. The learned

single Judge observed that “prima facie this Court is of the opinion it is not

desirable in the public interest to interfere with ongoing acquisition proceedings

at this stage”.

43. A reading of the order of the learned single Judge, makes it clear that the

matter required deeper examination and a detailed counter was called for as the

matter could not be adjudicated at the interlocutory stage. The interim order as

prayed was not granted at that stage, i.e when there was no counter affidavit.

The learned single Judge has however provided that the acquisition proceedings

and the consequential award that might be passed shall be subject to final result

of the writ petition.

44. We are of the view that entering into the merits of the submissions

advanced from both the sides, on the validity of the notification, compliance or

non-compliance with the procedure in issuing the notification, rehabilitation

scheme, the writ appellants whether entitled or not for the rehabilitation under

any such scheme of rehabilitation, and if they are so entitled, in view of the

submissions advanced that at a time when previously the notification was issued

for the same land, which notification was subsequently withdrawn and fresh

notification, the present one, was issued, and its effect on the impugned

notification, making of any observation either way would affect the lis in pending

writ petition, which is yet to be decided after the counter affidavit. The interim

relief application of the writ appellants also being pending in the writ petition and

its disposal on merits after counter affidavit may also be affected. From the order

dated 03.07.2026 what becomes evident is that for the time being i.e in the

20

absence of the counter it was considered not desirable to interfere with the

ongoing acquisition proceedings at the interlocutory stage.

45. So, we refrain from making any observations on the merits of the

submissions advanced. That is also not the scope at present in the writ appeal,

but for considering the validity or otherwise of the order under challenge, entering

into the merits of the order in the light of submissions advanced, which pertain to

the merit of the writ petition, will also have to be gone into. So, for the said

reason, as it also involves various factual aspects we deem it appropriate not to

enter into that aspect, when the writ petition and I.A is pending before the

learned single Judge.

46. However, in our view, valuable right of the writ petition is involved. It is not

in dispute that their land is the subject matter of the land acquisition notification.

It may be that very little part is under acquisition but the right to property as

guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, is not dependant on

the extent of the property or an area. No person can be deprived of the right to

property save by authority of law. Deprivation of even a smaller portion of ones’

property has to be in accordance with law. It is no doubt true that in case of

conflict between larger public interest and the interest of an individual, it is the

larger public interest that should prevail and an individual interest should give

way to the larger public interest, but the deprivation however small in the eyes of

others cannot be, except in accordance with law. In accordance with law does

not mean only by authority of law but also by following the procedure established

by law. The authority may be there under the Act, 2013 for acquisition of the

land but in doing so the authority has also to follow the procedure prescribed by

law. The contention of the writ appellants’ counsel that the mandatory provisions

and procedure has not been followed cannot be rejected at this stage as having

no substance or worth no-consideration. However, whether the procedure was or

was not followed and its effect is the matter for consideration in the pending writ

21

petition and for certain period the interest of the writ appellant(s) in W.A.No.849

of 2026 deserves protection.

47. To meet both the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate that the writ

petitions itself may be decided on an early date, if so, possible on the next date

fixed in the writ petitions, or in any case, the interim relief application of the writ

petitioners may be decided finally.

CONCLUSION:

48. Without observing anything on the merits of the submissions advanced

from either side in either way, we dispose of Writ Appeal No.849 of 2026 by

providing that the respondents, in the writ appeal, shall file the counter affidavit in

the writ petitions, if not already so filed, by the next date. After the counter

affidavit is filed, the application for interim relief filed by the writ petitioners shall

be considered and finally decided by the learned single Judge. The writ petitions

may itself be decided finally with opportunity to both sides. Till the application for

interim relief is finally decided, the interim protection granted in W.A.No.849 of

2026 shall continue, only with respect to writ appellants of W.A.No.849 of 2026

i.e in W.P.No.17814 of 2026. We expect that the application of interim relief shall

be considered and decided expeditiously within a period of one week from the

date of filing of the counter affidavit by the respondents. The writ appellants/writ

petitioners shall file their rejoinder affidavit if any within the aforesaid period of

one week. The writ appellants/writ petitioners shall not seek any adjournment

and shall cooperate, in the proceedings of the writ petitions and in their

application for interim relief.

Writ Appeal No.850 of 2026:

49. With respect to W.A.No.850 of 2026, learned Advocate General submitted

that, that appeal is not being argued by him and the arguments advanced are

only in W.A.No.849 of 2026.

22

50. One of the appellants namely Singamsetti Anupama in W.A.No.850 of

2026 (5

th

petitioner in W.P.No.17813 of 2026) filed a memo dated 21.07.2026 for

withdrawal of the writ appeal only with respect to her individual claim.

51. We however find no reasonable or justifiable cause for keeping the

W.A.No.850 of 2026 pending in view of pendency of the W.P.No.17813 of 2026

as also in view of the subsequent development taking place after the impugned

order dated 03.07.2026, but without prejudice to the right of both the sides in the

writ petition.

RESULT:

52. In the result:

(A) W.A.No.849 of 2026 is disposed of with the observations and

the directions as in paragraph 48 (supra).

(B) W.A.No.850 of 2026 is dismissed as withdrawn for the

appellant No.5 (writ petitioner No.5 in W.P.No.17813 of 2026)

namely Singamsetti Anupama.

(C) W.A.No.850 of 2026 also stands disposed of clarifying that in

W.A.No.850 of 2026 we have not interfered with the order of the

learned single Judge. So in the cases of the writ petitioners in

W.P.No.17813 of 2026, the order dated 03.07.2026 providing that

“the acquisition proceedings and consequential award that may

be passed shall be subject to the final result of the writ petition”,

shall continue, but subject to any further orders as may be

passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.17813 of 2026.

No order as to costs.

23

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall

also stand closed.

____________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI,J

_____________________________________

PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI,J

Dated:30 .07.2026

Whether the order is :

Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No

Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

DSV/Gk

24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

&

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI

WRIT APPEAL Nos.849 and 850 of 2026

Date:30.07.2026

Dsv/Gk