[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Sk.Shabeer vs The State Of Telangana on 16 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.434 of 2026
Dated: 16.04.2026
Between:
Sk. Shabeer
and 2 others.
...Appellants
and
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (LA & JA Department),
Secretariat Buildings,
BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad,
and 7 others.
...Respondents
JUDGMENT:
Learned counsel Sri Ch.Ravi Kumar appears for the appellants.
Sri E.Ramesh Chandra Goud, learned Government Pleader for
Land Acquisition, appears for respondents No.1, 2 and 5 to 8.
Sri B.Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of
India, representing Sri Madishetty Ramu, learned Standing Counsel for
National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), appears for respondents
No.3 and 4.
2. Three of the writ petitioners out of twelve are aggrieved by the
impugned judgment dated 07.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.25680 of 2023,
whereby the learned writ court relegated the writ petitioners to avail the
statutory remedy under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act,
1956 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act of 1956"), while refusing to
entertain the writ petition.
3. The writ petitioners approached the learned writ court for a
declaration that the action of the respondents in not taking steps to
prepare Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) Scheme and passing
award under Section 31 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act of 2013"), though the writ
petitioners belong to the category of project affected and displaced
families in view of the acquisition made for widening of the existing
road from Karimnagar to Warangal section of NH-563, as illegal and
unconstitutional. The writ petitioners also prayed that they are entitled
to R&R Scheme provided in the Second and Third Schedules of the Act
of 2013. In the writ proceedings, there was an interim stay for about a
period of two years from dispossession of the writ petitioners. However,
according to the appellants, immediately after passing of the impugned
judgment, their houses have been demolished and they are on roads.
These appellants do not have any grievance as regards the compensation
awarded in lieu of the acquisition of their land and structures standing
thereupon. They, however, are aggrieved by non-consideration of their
claim for R&R Scheme in terms of the Second and Third Schedules of
the Act of 2013, which applies to acquisitions made under the Act of
1956.
4. In order to buttress the aforesaid point, learned counsel for the
appellants has drawn the attention of this court to the order dated
28.08.2015 issued under Section 113(1) of the Act of 2013 by the
Central Government wherein the benefits available to the landowners
under the Act of 2013 are extended to similarly placed landowners
whose lands are acquired under the 13 enactments specified in the
Fourth Schedule thereunder, which includes the Act of 1956 at serial
No.7. Learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon the
comprehensive guidelines issued under the Act of 1956 by the Ministry
of Road, Transport and Highways, dated 28.12.2017, specifically
paragraph 4.4 thereof in order to contend that land losers under the
acquisition made under the Act of 1956 are not only entitled to
compensation in accordance with the First Schedule of the Act of 2013,
but also R&R Scheme in accordance with the Second Schedule and the
infrastructural amenities in accordance with the Third Schedule, as the
Act of 1956 is specified at serial No.7 in the Fourth Schedule of the Act
of 2013 with effect from 01.01.2015. Paragraph 4.4 of the said
guidelines reads as under:
"4.4 Following the notification of the aforesaid Ordinances, the
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways issued a letter dated
29.04.2015 whereby the select provisions of RFCTLARR Act,
2013 were made applicable to the NH Act, 1956 with effect from
01.01.2015. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid shows that the
Ordinance (Amendment) remained in force till 31st August 2015.
'Removal of Difficulties Order' was issued by the Department of
Land Resources on 28th August 2015, which took effect from
01.09.2015. However, since the date of application of the selected
relevant provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 to the NH Act,
1956 was 01.01.2015 in terms of the Ordinance (Amendment)
No.9 of 2014, it remains an unambiguous and accepted position
that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013, relating to the determination of compensation in
accordance with the First Schedule, rehabilitation and resettlement
in accordance with the Second Schedule and infrastructure
amenities in accordance with the Third Schedule have been made
applicable to all cases of land acquisition under the NH Act, 1956,
i.e. the enactment specified at Sr. No. 7 in the Fourth Schedule to
the RFCTLARR Act, with effect from 01.01.2015."
5. It is submitted that the application of the writ petitioners was
examined by the District Collector, Hanumakonda, but on the
clarification from the Project Director, NHAI, PIU, Warangal, he has
denied such claim for R&R Scheme under the Second and Third
Schedules of the Act of 2013 for National Highways Projects vide
memo dated 15.05.2023. This aggrieved the writ petitioners to approach
the learned writ court. However, the learned writ court relegated the
writ petitioners to avail the remedy under Section 3G(5) of the Act of
1956, which, in the instant case, would not arise as there is no award in
respect of the claims to which the writ petitioners are entitled under the
Second and Third Schedules of the Act of 2013. Therefore, being
aggrieved, three of the aggrieved writ petitioners have preferred this
appeal.
6. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for
respondents No.3 and 4 has fairly submitted that the clarification of the
Project Director, NHAI, PIU, Warangal, referred to in the memo dated
15.05.2023 would not stand the test of legal scrutiny, in view of the
extension of the benefits to the land losers under the Act of 1956 also, as
applicable under the First, Second and Third Schedules of the Act of
2013. It is his submission that respondent No.7, who is the competent
authority, may be directed to consider the claim of the appellants in
accordance with law. It is also submitted that the appellants and others
have got enhanced compensation as against acquisition of their land and
structures standing thereupon and they do not have any grievance as
against it.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing
respondent No.7 submits that if a direction is issued upon the competent
authority/Revenue Divisional Officer - cum - Land Acquisition Officer,
Hanumakonda, for consideration of the claim of the appellants towards
R&R Scheme under the Second and Third Schedules of the Act of 2013,
the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after taking
note of the facts and circumstances and the legal provisions referred to
hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the land losers under the
acquisition made in exercise of the powers under the Act of 1956 are
entitled to the benefits which are available under the First, Second and
Third Schedules of the Act of 2013, in view of the Government Order
dated 28.08.2015 referred to hereinabove. The Ministry of Road,
Transport and Highways has also issued the comprehensive guidelines
in that regard. However, it appears that this aspect was not pointed out
and missed by the learned writ court while relegating the writ petitioners
to the remedy under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956. The remedy
under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 would arise only in case the
affected parties are aggrieved by the award made in respect of their
claims under the Second and Third Schedules of the Act of 2013. In
such circumstances, the impugned judgment warrants interference.
9. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside. The appellants
are granted liberty to approach respondent No.7 with a claim for
entitlement towards R&R Scheme under the Second and Third
Schedules of the Act of 2013. Needless to say, on such application
being made, respondent No.7 would take a decision in accordance with
law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment along with the application. Since the appellants contend
that their houses have been demolished after passing of the impugned
judgment, it would be open for them to seek directions from the
competent authority for providing temporary shelter in the meantime,
which shall also be considered in accordance with law.
10. The instant writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
16.04.2026
vs
