[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
M. Narender Reddy vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.13789 OF 2014
DATE: 16.04.2026
Between:
M.Narender Reddy, S/o. Late M.Ranga Reddy,
R/o .Villa No.124, Aparna County, Hafeezpet Village,
Miyapur, Hyderabad.
.... Petitioner
and
The Government of Andhra Pradesh
rep. by its Principal Secretary,
MA and UD, Secretariat, Hyderabad
and five others.
.... Respondents
ORDER:
The present writ petition has been filed declaring the action of
the respondents in not initiating the Land Acquisition proceedings
with respect to the Government School constructed in an extent of
1200 square yards of the petitioner in the Layout No.1317/MP2/
HUDA sanctioned by the 3rd respondent, as arbitrary, and illegal and
consequentially direct the respondents to pay the compensation to
the petitioner for the said extent by initiating the Land Acquisition
Proceedings under The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner along with
others are the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring
1200 square yards in Layout No.1317/MP2/HUDA, dated 06.08.1991
in respect of land in Sy.Nos.754, 755, 756, 761(P), 765(P) and 764(P) of
Shamshabad village, Ranga Reddy District. The said layout was
obtained by the petitioner and others, who are the landlords from the
3rd respondent after paying the necessary fee, and after proper
demarcation of the individual plots and also development all the
amenities as per the sanctioned layout have obtained final layout.
Further, in the said layout, an extent of 200 square yards of land was
left for the purpose of School by the petitioner. It is assertion of the
petitioner that the said land was left for construction of a school by
them and the same is not coming under the purview of the amenities
or open spaces in the said sanctioned layout, dated 06.08.1991.
Further, it is stated by the petitioner that the said layout sanctioned
by the 3rd respondent shows the following plotted area, open spaces
and area for amenities:
Land use analysis Area in square yards Percentage
Plotted area 78,488.92 58.00%
Open space 13,537.48 10.00%
Area for amenities 3,563.60 2.62%
Roads area 39,784.80 29.38%
3. It is stated that as per the said layout sanction letter dated
06.08.1991 issued by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner and others
have transferred the road area of 39,784.80 square yards (29.38%) and
open spaces of 13,537.48 (10%) through a gift deed to the respondent
No.5 and the final layout was released on fulfilling all the conditions,
pursuant to which, the individual plots were sold to several
prospective purchasers through registered sale deeds, while
retaining the spaces reserved for commercial and school purposes in
the said layout.
4. Further, it is stated that the 5th respondent-Gram Panchayat,
taking advantage of the fact of the land to an extent of 1200 square
yards shown as School, has passed a resolution, dated 25.08.2009 to
construct a school through one Mr. G.Bhaskar Reddy under Rajiv
Vidya Mission announced by the then Government of A.P., through
2nd respondent. Pursuant to which, the 5th respondent entered into an
agreement on 21.10.2009 for construction of the school with an
expenditure of Rs.3.80 lakhs and commenced the construction work
through the contractor over the said extent of 1200 square yards, and
when the petitioner objected for the same, the 5th respondent without
following the due procedure as contemplated under law and without
issuing any notification under the Land Acquisition Act 2013,
straightaway issued permission for construction of the school over
the said land, admeasuring 1200 square yards, which is reserved by
the petitioner for construction of a private school by them in the said
layout. It is stated that though several representations dated
05.09.2012, 20.06.2013, 30.09.2013 made to the respondents by the
petitioner for giving a revised layout by releasing an extent of 1200
square yards, which was utilized by the 5th respondent for
construction of a school, from out of the open spaces surrendered by
the petitioner, no orders were communicated despite several
reminders.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
said land of 1200 square yards was left open by the petitioner and
others, only for the purpose of construction of private school, but it
was not left as amenities or open place or for the school to be
constructed by the Government, and more so, it is not coming under
the purview of open spaces. It is further contended that since the
Government School was constructed in the private land of the
petitioner and others, the Government cannot deprive a citizen from
enjoying the land and the respondent being state instrumentalities
are bound to acquire the said land and pay compensation in
accordance with law.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel Mr. V.Siddardh Goud representing
Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA for
respondent Nos.3 and 4 would contend that a detailed counter-
affidavit has been filed, wherein it is stated that the averments made
in the writ petition are relating to alleged construction of a building
over an extent of 1200 square yards of plot in the layout approved by
the then HUDA, with which the answering respondents are nothing
to do, and that the 2nd and 5th respondents herein are the relevant
parties to traverse the averments relating to construction of building
over the land allegedly belonging to the petitioner. However, it is
stated that the open spaces surrendered to the 5th respondent herein,
in compliance of the stipulations of the then HUDA, cannot be
allotted to the petitioner herein and the open spaces have to be
owned and maintained by the 5th respondent as an open spaces only
and the answering respondents are not at all responsible for payment
of compensation for the land admeasuring 1200 square yards in
which allegedly a school building is constructed, and thus, the
learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 prays to
dismiss the present writ petition.
7. The learned Standing Counsel Mr. Laxmaiah Kanchani for the
5th respondent would contend that a detailed counter-affidavit has
been filed, wherein it is stated that the writ petition is misconceived
and as the matter of fact, the said layout was sanctioned by the 3rd
respondent in the name of Smt. Rajamma, who was the owner of the
land in the above said survey numbers, where the layout was issued
and as per the terms and conditions under G.O.Ms.No.67 PR & RD
(Pts-IV) dated 26.02.2002 and the Rules made under HMDA Act 2008,
an extent of 13,537.48 square yards land has been left as open space
and to an extent of area 3,563.60 square yards has been left for area
for amenities, and to an extent of 39,784.80 square yards has been left
for roads and to an extent of area 78,488.92 square yards is the
plotted area and according to the said layout, the total extent of area
is 1,35,374.80 square yards, which comprises the area of above
mentioned extents.
8. Thus, it is stated that the question of extent of 1200 square
yards retained by the petitioner for the private school does not arise
and even in the sanctioned layout, the alleged area of 1200 square
yards was earmarked in the layout as school, which is included in the
area left for the amenities, and as per the specifications of area
mentioned by the petitioner in the affidavit, the total area comes to
1,35,374.80 square yards and the final layout was sanctioned and
approved. Further, the claim of the petitioner that to an extent of
1200 square yards is private land out of total extent has not been
substantiated. If the petitioner retained an extent of 1200 square
yards as alleged by him, it should be other than the total area of
1,35,374.80 square yards, and it is stated that sanctioned layout does
not show that any space is retained by the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel contends that the petitioner has no right over the
said land as the final layout is approved long back and admittedly,
the said land is shown as school coming under the purview of open
spaces left for school and that the 5th respondent has constructed a
Government school and that the writ petition is devoid of merits and
liable to be dismissed.
9. It is contended that as the 3rd respondent is competent
authority for according layout permission, the clarification regarding
1200 square yards which was earmarked for school purpose in
approved layout No.1317/MP/2/HUD dated 06.08.1991, which
according to the petitioner is left for private school purpose or falling
in the open spaces has to be determined by the 3rd respondent only.
10. Heard Mr. Thoom Srinivas, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. V.Siddardh Goud, representing Mr. V.Narasimha
Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA for respondent Nos.3
and 4, and Mr. Laxmaiah Kanchani, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent No.5-Shamshabad Municipality and having given
earnest consideration to their submissions, perused the material on
record.
11. Evidently, it is an admitted fact that the final layout has been
sanctioned on the application made by the petitioner, Smt.
V.Rajamma, and others, who are the landlords of the various
individual extents of land in the above survey numbers, situated at
Shamshabad village, Ranga Reddy District. The final layout was
already released and the subsequently plots were sold to many
prospective purchasers and vide in the preceding paragraphs of this
judgment, the land use analysis, area in square yards, and percentage
of the said land, along with open places area for amenities and roads
area is also specifically mentioned as per the final layout approved
by 3rd respondent.
12. However, the main grievance of the petitioner is that, in the
final layout released by the 3rd respondent an extent of 1200 square
yards is left by the petitioner and other landlords, to be a private
school area, and is not coming under the purview of open spaces or
amenity spaces earmarked in the final layout, and the 3rd respondent
along with the 5th respondent have not categorically stated that the
said 1200 square yards is an open space shown in the final layout and
admittedly, both the respondents though analyzed have not shown
particulars of the open space including the land to an extent of 1200
square yards is coming under the purview of open space.
13. Be that as it may, as per the regulations, all the open places,
roads and all other amenities, will be in the supervisory, enjoyment,
and control of the 5th respondent, however, once the said land is left
as school, there is definitely an ambiguity existing in the said layout,
whether it is a private school to be built in the said layout by the
landlords or it is the amenities space left as per the sanctioned layout
for construction of a school by the 5th and 6th respondents. However,
if the said land admeasuring 1200 square yards is coming into the
way of open space in the final layout, the petitioner cannot claim any
compensation, and when representations were filed before the 3rd
respondent, who approved the final layout, ought to have considered
the same by passing a specific order as to whether the said land of
1200 square yards falls under the purview of open space in the layout
or it does not fall in the open spaces/amenities area, after verifying
the details of the layout. However, nothing concrete has been stated
by the 3rd respondent to arrive at a just conclusion by this Court.
14. The 3rd respondent is only the proper authority to determine
whether the said land admeasuring 1200 square yards was left open
in the final layout to be an open space, or whether it is the private
place not falling under the open spaces left by the petitioner and
others, for the purpose of a private school, as contended by them.
15. In that view of the matter, the 3rd respondent shall consider the
representation of the petitioner and determine whether 1200 square
yards is coming under the open place/amenities space as per the
final layout, and the norms existing as on the date of sanction, if
necessary by conducting a physical inspection and pass appropriate
orders. The petitioner may once again file a detailed representation
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order by showing all the details along with the copy of final
layout and relevant documents, and the 3rd respondent is directed to
consider the same in accordance with the rules and regulations as on
the date of sanction of layout and the final layout by passing
appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of the said representation, in the event of the 3rd respondent
determines the said extent does not fall in the open spaces or
amenities spaces, the authorities shall initiate appropriate
proceedings for acquiring the said land. Accordingly, the Writ
Petition stands disposed of.
16. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous
applications if any shall stand closed.
________________________________
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO,J
Date: 16.04.2026
kkm
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.13789 OF 2014
Date: 16.04.2026
kkm
