Maduri Thirupathi vs The State of Telangana

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 VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

WRIT APPEAL No.1007 OF 2026

(CNR No.HBHC010599752026)

Dated : 16.09.2026
Between:

Maduri Thirupathi and three others
… Appellants
AND
The State of Telangana,
represented by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (LA & JA Department) Secretariat Buildings,
BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad and 15 others.
… Respondents

JUDGMENT:
Ms. Rajaboina Urmila Yadav, learned counsel represents Mr. Gadde
Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. E. Ramesh Chandra Goud, learned Government Pleader for Land
Acquisition appears for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 to 8.
Mr. P. Harinatha Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for National
Highway Authority of India appears for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. Four of the writ petitioners out of twelve are aggrieved by the
impugned judgment dated 07.04.2026 passed in W.P.No.25680 of 2023,
whereby the learned writ court relegated the writ petitioners to avail the

2
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,

3
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
“4.4 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
st
31 August 2015. 'Removal of Difficulties Order' was issued by the
th
Department of Land Resources on 28 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, four of the aggrieved writ petitioners have preferred this appeal.

5
6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.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

6
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

7
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, if any pending, shall stand closed.
___________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ


_________________________________
VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J
th
16 September, 2026

KTL