.\ t 3486 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 28275 OF 2019 Between: 1. Joginipally Sudhakar Rao, S/o. Venkat Rao, aged about 69 years, Manwada Village, Boinpalle Mandal, Rajanna Siricilla District, 2. Joginipally Umapathi, S/o. Sudhakar Rao, aged about 38 years, [\t'lanwada Village, Boinpalle Mandal, Rajanna Siricilla District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Revenue) Land Acquisition, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, Siricilla, Siricilla District. 3. The Executive Engineer (lrrigation), Division ll, IFFC Circle, LIr4D Colony, Karimnagar. 4. The Special Deputy Collector-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Siricilla. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of lVandamus declaring the in action on the part of the respondents in not include the petitioners 1 and 2 in the list of Beneficiaries Published in the Gazette Notification, and not paying the financial assistance @ Rs.4.50 lakhs project affected families under Mid [Vlanair project in manwada village in the form of Ex-gratia as per the G.O.Ms.No.1'10 Dated 61912018 to the house.No.l-'1 '1 owned by the first petitioner and H.No.4-54 owned by the 2nd petitioner situated at Manuwada Village,Boinpalli Mandal,Rajanna sircilla District in lieu of all the hampered development of village in accordance with Law irr respect of H.No.1-'1 1 and H.No.4-54 of Manuwada Village, Boinpalli Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

Petition under Sect,on 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to consider the recommendations o'M.R.o. dated 411l2o1g include the petitioners 1 and 2 in the list of Beneficiaries and direct the respondents to pay financial assistance @ Rs.4,50 lakhs to each petitioner being the project affected families under mid IVIaair project in lvlanwada village in the form of Ex-gratia as per the G,o.t\Is.No.1 .10 Dated 6tgt2o1B to H.No.1-1 1 owned by rhe first petitioner and H.No.4-s4 owned by the 2nd petitioner situated at l\rlanuwada village, Boinpalli IVandal, Rajanna sircilla District pending disposal of the above said writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. ARJUN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: AGp FOR LAND ACOUISITION (TG) 'Ihe Court made the following: ORDER I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF. TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HONOI'RABLT SRI JUSTICE VAIilTI RAMA KRISHNA REDDY ( W.P.No,28275 of 2019 Date: L2.O8.2O26 Between: Joginipally Sudhakar Rao and another Petitioners AND The State of Telangala and 3 others ...Respondents :ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-" ...to issue a writ or ()rder or clitection more particltlarly in the nqture ofwrit of mandamus decloring the oction on the Pqrt of the respondents in not include the petitioner Nos.I and 2 in the list af Benefciaries Published in the Gazette Notilication, and not paying the financial \ssistance or Rs 1.50 lakhs propct the form of affected fanilies under Mid Manait projecl in Manwada illage in -gratia a.s per the G.O.Ms.Ntt.1l0 Dated 6/9/2018 to the house'No'1-ll owned by the Jirst petitioner qnd H.N(,.1-51 otvned by the 2tu petitioner sitttated qt Manuwadi Village, Boinpalli Mandal, Rojanna Sircillq Districl in lieu of all respect of the hampered clevelopment of village in uccotdance with L ' in H.No.t-11 and H.No.4-51 of Manmada Village, Boinpalli Mandal, Raianna Sircilla District.... " counsel2. Heard Sri Heard Sri B. Arjun Rao, learned Vrj ay Kumar, learnedappearing for the petitioners, and Sri B. Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for the respondents. FACTS petitioners is that petitioner No' 1 is the3. The case of the owner of House No. 1- 1 1 and petitioner No.2 is the owner of House No.4-54, both situated at Manwada Village, Boinpalli 2 VRKR,J W.P. No.28275 of 2019

Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District (hereinafter referred to as "the subject propertios") Manwada Village came to be submerged on byaccount of the Mid Manair Reservoir Project' and G.O.Ms.No.17, I&CAD (PW:LA'IV-P&R) Department' dated 03.03.2010, the village was declared as fully submerged For the said purpose, a notification was issued and the subject theproperties were acquired. At the time of initiation of in respect of the subject acquisition pro,:eedings, estimates properties \,vere prepared upon inspection thereof' 4. Subsequerrtly, the Government issued G'O'Ms'No'110' Irrigation ancl CAD (LA'R&R/A2) Department' dated 06.09.2018, according permission to provide financial assistance of Rs.25.84 crore, at the rate of Rs'4 25 lakhs each' to 608 Project Affected Families under the Mid Manair Project in Manwada Vi1lage, in the form of ex-gratia, in lieu of all the hampered deve:opment of the village' 5. According, to the petitioners, their names were not included in the list of beneficraries at the time of preparation of the said list try the Deputy Executive Engineer, R&B Sub-Division. The petitioners therefore approached respondent No.6 seeking inclusirrn of their names in the beneficiaries list. The -) I/RKR,J It/.P. No.28275 of 2019

then Tahsildar, Boinpalli Mandal, after conducting an enquiry, recommended the names of the petitioners for inclusion in the beneficiaries list and issued proceedings No'C/1005-3 12018, is that,dated 04.01.2019. The grievance of the petitioners notwithstanding the said recommendation, their names have not been included in the beneficiaries list. Hence, the present Writ Petition. ST'BMISSIONS A. Submtssions on beha{ of the petltioners the6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are the owners of the subject properties, which were acquired for the Mid Manair Project, and that the Government, under G.O.Ms.No.11O, dated O6'09.2018, sanctioned financial project a-ffectedassistance in the form of ex-gratia to the submitted that, afterfamilies of Manwada Village. It was conducting the necessarJi enquiry, the Tahsildar recommended inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the beneficiaries list by proceedings dated 04.Ol.2Ol9. counsel further submitted that the claim of the 7 . Learned petitioners is required to be considered with reference to the the relevalt Resettlement and Rehabilitation policy and "''\ <\ .t VRKR.J W.P. No.28275 of2019

definitions of "Family", "Project Affected Family' and "Project Displaced Family", besides the other Government Orders relied theupon b1- the petitioners. It was contended that recommendatior-r made bv the Tahsildar could not have been ignored r.,',ithout properiv considering the material placed by the petitioners. B. Szbmissions on behalt of the respondents 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, relying upon the counter-affidavjt filed on behalf of respondent No'4, submitted that, pursuant to the recommendation of the Tahsildar dated 04.U,.2olg, 's'LLich rvas based on the Ration Cards standing in the names of tre petitioners and issued in the year 2006, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sircilla, directed the Tahsildar to conduct an encluirv- and submit a detailed report as to vi'hether Manwada Village during the petitioners had been residing in the three years preceding Notification No.52, dated 13'06 2006' said direction, the g. It was submitted that, pursuant to the O1'02'2020 Tahsildar, Boinpalli, submitted a report dated stating that tht: petitioners had not resided in Manwada Village at the time of ..he Socio Economic Survey, or during the three years precedinpl G azette Notification No.52, dated 13.06.2006. 5 VRKR,J ll.P. No.28275 of 2019 Therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioners do not fall within the category of Project Affected Families and are not entitled to the R&R benelits claimed by them.

Government Pleader further submitted10. Learned Assistant that, according to the clarification issued vide Government of datedAndhra Pradesh Memo No.16697lReR/ A.2l2OlI-1, O2.O8.2O11, read with Clause 5.4(a) of the State R&R Policy, R&R)2OO5, issued in G.O.Ms.No.68, I&CAD (PW'LA'IV Department, dated 08.04.20O5, members of families who are permanently residing, or practising any trade, occupation or vocation, in the Project Affected Area are eligible for the benefits persons who are notunder the R&R Policy; and that are,permanently residing in the Project Affected Area accordingly, not eligible for the other benefits under the R&R alsoPolicy, except the value of their structures. It was contended that the Writ Petition is hit by laches. POINT FOR DETERIUINATION submissions and having regard to the 11. In view of the rival for material placed on record, the following point arises determination: 6 VRKR,,J Il.P. No.28275 of 2019 Whether the claim of tLrc petitioners to ex-gratia unde" G.C).Ms.No.110, dated O6.09.2018, can be adjucl.icate d in these proceedings? ANALYSIS

12. At the rrutset, the controversy involved in the present case revolves around the entitlement of the petitioners to payment of ex-gratia un<ler G.O.Ms.No.l i0, dated O6.09.201g, issued by the Irrigation and CAD (LA.R&R/A2) Department. To consider the issue involved in the present Writ petition. it is appropriate to refer to tLLe said Government Order, the relevant portions whereof are ertracted hereunder: "2. In the reference 2nd read aboue, the District Collector, Rajanna Sircilla ho's informed that in G.O.Ms.No. j 7, I&CAD (PW:LA.IV-P&R) Dept., dt.03.03.2o10 uas issued declaing tt4anutada uilLage as fully submerged und.er Mid. Manair Reseruoir. Afier issuing the said G.O. there is no deuelopme'nt in the uillage i.e., roads. drains etc. He has ,Pr:fZr: requested to prouicle cash compensation in lieu of R&R Colorry. After examining the matter, it utas requested-to direct the members o.f the Three Men Committee constituted in the reference Sth read aboue to inspect the Manutada uillage and_ submit their report to Gottemment on the matter through Commissioner, R&R .subject for taking further acti.on in the matter.

3. In the re feren.ce 6th reod aboue, the Commissioner, R&R & LA has furnished the report of the 3 men committee, tuhich amcng other recommend.ed that a considerable financial ossistance upto 4.25 lakhs in the Jorm of ex_ gratia mat, be extended to the affected. families utith the condition t,iat theg shall not approach ang legal - fon_tm for enhancemt,nt of propose-d ex_gratia in tiei of all the hampered ,teuelopment of the uilage fo, t".i'g i'ears. fnis tuill enharrcemei, help fi t socio economic conditions ,o! the affectea, Jamilies. of 7 YRKR,J W.P. No.28275 of 2019 4. Gouentment afier careful examination of the aboue proposal, hereby accord pennission to prouide financiol assistance for an amount of Rs.25.84/ - Crore @ Rs.4.25/' LakLts to 608 Project Affected Families under Mid Manair Project in Maruada Village of Boinpalli Mandal, Rajanna the Sircilla District in the fonn of ex-gratia in lieu of all gears hampered deuelopment of uilloge for the last 8 subject to condition ttnt theg shall not approach ang legal forum for enhancement of ex-gratia". 13. A perusal of the above Government Order makes it clear that the Government intended to extend hnancial assistance to the Project Affected Families under the Mid Manair Project. The entitlement of the petitioners, therefore, turns upon whether tJley satisfy the requirements applicable to such families under the relevant Resettlement and Rehabilitation policy a question which is essentially factual in character

14. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the Tahsildar, after conducting the necessary enquiry, recommended their narnes for inclusion in the beneficiaries list vide proceedings dated O4.Ol.2Ol9. However, a-fter the filing of the present Writ Petition, a counter-affidavit came to be filed stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer had directed the Tahsildar to conduct a further enquiry into the question whether the petitioners had been residing in Manwada Village during the three years preceding Notification No.52, dated .-'d 8 VRKR,J W.P. No.28275 of 2019 Tahsildar13.06.2006, and that, pursuant thereto, the thesubmitted a report dated Ol'O2'2O2O stating that petitionershadnotresidedinthevillageatthetimeoftheSocio Economic Survey or during the said three-year period' le arned counsel for the petitioners has extensivetry15. Though argued with regard to the entitiement of the petitioners to the by drawing thebenefit under the said Government Order, attention of ttris Court to the relevant Government Orders' including the rlefinitions of "Family", "Project Affected Family" in the Policy onand "Project I)isplaced Family" contained Resettlement;aldRehabilitationforProjectAffectedAreas' to the 2005, as n'el1 as to various factual aspects relating petitioners' residence in the viilage at the relevant point of time, considered opinion that these disputed this Court is of the the questions of fact cannot appropriately be adjudicated in present proceedings.

there are two reports of the Tahsildar which 16. In particrrlar, take divergent vieu,s on the very szune factual question' The earlier proceedings dated 04.01.2019 resulted in a recommendation in favour of the petitioners, whereas the subsequent report dated Ol.O2.2O2O records a contrary 9 VRKR,J W.P. No.28275 of 2019 position. The material placed before this Court does not disclose the reasons for which the subsequent report departed from the earlier recommendation, nor does it disclose that the petitioners were heard before the said report came to be submitted. In such circumstalces, it would neither be appropriate nor permissible for this Court to adjudicate upon the disputed questions of fact relating to the petitioners' entitlement in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. In so far as the plea of laches is concerned, it is to be noticed that G.O.Ms.No.1 1O was issued on 06.O9.2018, that the proceedings recommending the inclusion of the petitioners were issued on O4.Ol.2Ol9, and that the present Writ Petition came to be filed in the year 2Ol9.In any event, since this Court is not adjudicating the claim of the petitioners on merits, but is remitting the matter for a fresh enquiry, it is open to respondent No.2 to consider the said objection also, along with the other contentions of the parties.

18. It is also to be noticed that, on the own showing of the respondents, persons who are not permanently residing in the Project Affected Area, though ineligible for the other benefits 10 VRKR,J W.P. No.28275 of 20)9 under the R&R Policy, nevertheiess remain entitled to the value of their structures. Since the petitioners assert ownership of the acquired houses, that limb of the claim shall also be examined by respondent No.2, independently of the claim to ex-gratia under G.O.Ms.I{o.110. considers it appropriate19. In the cir:umstances, this Court to direct respor,.dent No.2 to conduct an enquiry by affording an opportunity of 1-rearing to the petitioners and by considering the earlierentirety of the relevant material, including the recommendation of the Tahsildar and the subsequent report. CONCLUSION AND RESULT directing20. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, respondent No 2 to conduct an enquiry afresh with regard to the entitlement of the petitioners to the R&R benefits/ ex-gratia as provided utrder G.O.Ms.No.11O, dated 06.09.2018, in the follou'ing terms: (i) The petitioners sha11 submit a representation, along with all relevalt documents, before respondent No.2 within a period of two (02) r,r,.eel<s from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 1l TRKR,J lI/.P. No.28275 of 2019 such representation, resPondent No'2(ii) Upon receiPt of shall conduct a detailed enquiry aJter affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners

No'2 shall(iii) While conducting the enquiry' respondent considerthedocumentsliledalongwiththepresentWrit Petition,theearlierrecommendation/proceedingsdated O4.01.2O19, the subsequent report dated O1'02 '2020' the theapplicable Resettlement and Rehabilitation policy and Government Orders on the subject, the entitlement of the petitioners to the value of their structures, and anY other Ielevantdocumentsthatmaybesubmittedbythepetitioners. (iv) Respondent No.2 shall pass a reasoned order' in accordancewithlaw,withinaperiodoftwo(02)monthsfrom the date of receipt of the representation, and shall communicate the decision to the Petitioners' 21,. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any petrtroners' oplnlon on the merits of the claim of the Respondent No.2 shall consider the matter independently and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law' be no order as to costs 22. There shall 12 VRKR,J W P No.28275 of20l9 any, 23. As a sequel, the misceilaneous petitions pending, if shail stand closed s D I - r srtErEA[Y A:I'EiRRX //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SECTION To, Buildings' Secretariat (Revenue) Land Acquisition' 1 The Principal Secretary' ii;i;;ireransana HYderabad' il: LrvrD coonv FFC crce I i[*:*.':: ?il;:"l"li1,iffli'J;l::i' D-ivision al Officer, Siricilla collector-cum-Revenue - fi ::t"*'''"ru" B ArPn Court for the State of ; ;;";;sr i:: ,-:::"'ffJ:[|:'-.^ 6 Two CCs tc the GP HYderabad[oUr] ' at +;;";; 7. Two CD CoPies TJ TKS \+ HIGH COURT CC TODAY

DATED: 1210812026 1 Y\E 5TAIf ORDER /J 2326 c AUlj P2o L) ? 2 \ WP.No.28275 of 2019 * * DFsp DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,64\D Yi_ Lb\.8126

.\ t 3486 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 28275 OF 2019 Between: 1. Joginipally Sudhakar Rao, S/o. Venkat Rao, aged about 69 years, Manwada Village, Boinpalle Mandal, Rajanna Siricilla District, 2. Joginipally Umapathi, S/o. Sudhakar Rao, aged about 38 years, [\t'lanwada Village, Boinpalle Mandal, Rajanna Siricilla District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Revenue) Land Acquisition, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, Siricilla, Siricilla District. 3. The Executive Engineer (lrrigation), Division ll, IFFC Circle, LIr4D Colony, Karimnagar. 4. The Special Deputy Collector-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Siricilla. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of lVandamus declaring the in action on the part of the respondents in not include the petitioners 1 and 2 in the list of Beneficiaries Published in the Gazette Notification, and not paying the financial assistance @ Rs.4.50 lakhs project affected families under Mid [Vlanair project in manwada village in the form of Ex-gratia as per the G.O.Ms.No.1'10 Dated 61912018 to the house.No.l-'1 '1 owned by the first petitioner and H.No.4-54 owned by the 2nd petitioner situated at Manuwada Village,Boinpalli Mandal,Rajanna sircilla District in lieu of all the hampered development of village in accordance with Law irr respect of H.No.1-'1 1 and H.No.4-54 of Manuwada Village, Boinpalli Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

Petition under Sect,on 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to consider the recommendations o'M.R.o. dated 411l2o1g include the petitioners 1 and 2 in the list of Beneficiaries and direct the respondents to pay financial assistance @ Rs.4,50 lakhs to each petitioner being the project affected families under mid IVIaair project in lvlanwada village in the form of Ex-gratia as per the G,o.t\Is.No.1 .10 Dated 6tgt2o1B to H.No.1-1 1 owned by rhe first petitioner and H.No.4-s4 owned by the 2nd petitioner situated at l\rlanuwada village, Boinpalli IVandal, Rajanna sircilla District pending disposal of the above said writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. ARJUN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: AGp FOR LAND ACOUISITION (TG) 'Ihe Court made the following: ORDER I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF. TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HONOI'RABLT SRI JUSTICE VAIilTI RAMA KRISHNA REDDY ( W.P.No,28275 of 2019 Date: L2.O8.2O26 Between: Joginipally Sudhakar Rao and another Petitioners AND The State of Telangala and 3 others ...Respondents :ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-" ...to issue a writ or ()rder or clitection more particltlarly in the nqture ofwrit of mandamus decloring the oction on the Pqrt of the respondents in not include the petitioner Nos.I and 2 in the list af Benefciaries Published in the Gazette Notilication, and not paying the financial \ssistance or Rs 1.50 lakhs propct the form of affected fanilies under Mid Manait projecl in Manwada illage in -gratia a.s per the G.O.Ms.Ntt.1l0 Dated 6/9/2018 to the house'No'1-ll owned by the Jirst petitioner qnd H.N(,.1-51 otvned by the 2tu petitioner sitttated qt Manuwadi Village, Boinpalli Mandal, Rojanna Sircillq Districl in lieu of all respect of the hampered clevelopment of village in uccotdance with L ' in H.No.t-11 and H.No.4-51 of Manmada Village, Boinpalli Mandal, Raianna Sircilla District.... " counsel2. Heard Sri Heard Sri B. Arjun Rao, learned Vrj ay Kumar, learnedappearing for the petitioners, and Sri B. Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for the respondents. FACTS petitioners is that petitioner No' 1 is the3. The case of the owner of House No. 1- 1 1 and petitioner No.2 is the owner of House No.4-54, both situated at Manwada Village, Boinpalli 2 VRKR,J W.P. No.28275 of 2019

Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District (hereinafter referred to as "the subject propertios") Manwada Village came to be submerged on byaccount of the Mid Manair Reservoir Project' and G.O.Ms.No.17, I&CAD (PW:LA'IV-P&R) Department' dated 03.03.2010, the village was declared as fully submerged For the said purpose, a notification was issued and the subject theproperties were acquired. At the time of initiation of in respect of the subject acquisition pro,:eedings, estimates properties \,vere prepared upon inspection thereof' 4. Subsequerrtly, the Government issued G'O'Ms'No'110' Irrigation ancl CAD (LA'R&R/A2) Department' dated 06.09.2018, according permission to provide financial assistance of Rs.25.84 crore, at the rate of Rs'4 25 lakhs each' to 608 Project Affected Families under the Mid Manair Project in Manwada Vi1lage, in the form of ex-gratia, in lieu of all the hampered deve:opment of the village' 5. According, to the petitioners, their names were not included in the list of beneficraries at the time of preparation of the said list try the Deputy Executive Engineer, R&B Sub-Division. The petitioners therefore approached respondent No.6 seeking inclusirrn of their names in the beneficiaries list. The -) I/RKR,J It/.P. No.28275 of 2019

then Tahsildar, Boinpalli Mandal, after conducting an enquiry, recommended the names of the petitioners for inclusion in the beneficiaries list and issued proceedings No'C/1005-3 12018, is that,dated 04.01.2019. The grievance of the petitioners notwithstanding the said recommendation, their names have not been included in the beneficiaries list. Hence, the present Writ Petition. ST'BMISSIONS A. Submtssions on beha{ of the petltioners the6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are the owners of the subject properties, which were acquired for the Mid Manair Project, and that the Government, under G.O.Ms.No.11O, dated O6'09.2018, sanctioned financial project a-ffectedassistance in the form of ex-gratia to the submitted that, afterfamilies of Manwada Village. It was conducting the necessarJi enquiry, the Tahsildar recommended inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the beneficiaries list by proceedings dated 04.Ol.2Ol9. counsel further submitted that the claim of the 7 . Learned petitioners is required to be considered with reference to the the relevalt Resettlement and Rehabilitation policy and "''\ <\ .t VRKR.J W.P. No.28275 of2019

definitions of "Family", "Project Affected Family' and "Project Displaced Family", besides the other Government Orders relied theupon b1- the petitioners. It was contended that recommendatior-r made bv the Tahsildar could not have been ignored r.,',ithout properiv considering the material placed by the petitioners. B. Szbmissions on behalt of the respondents 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, relying upon the counter-affidavjt filed on behalf of respondent No'4, submitted that, pursuant to the recommendation of the Tahsildar dated 04.U,.2olg, 's'LLich rvas based on the Ration Cards standing in the names of tre petitioners and issued in the year 2006, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sircilla, directed the Tahsildar to conduct an encluirv- and submit a detailed report as to vi'hether Manwada Village during the petitioners had been residing in the three years preceding Notification No.52, dated 13'06 2006' said direction, the g. It was submitted that, pursuant to the O1'02'2020 Tahsildar, Boinpalli, submitted a report dated stating that tht: petitioners had not resided in Manwada Village at the time of ..he Socio Economic Survey, or during the three years precedinpl G azette Notification No.52, dated 13.06.2006. 5 VRKR,J ll.P. No.28275 of 2019 Therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioners do not fall within the category of Project Affected Families and are not entitled to the R&R benelits claimed by them.

Government Pleader further submitted10. Learned Assistant that, according to the clarification issued vide Government of datedAndhra Pradesh Memo No.16697lReR/ A.2l2OlI-1, O2.O8.2O11, read with Clause 5.4(a) of the State R&R Policy, R&R)2OO5, issued in G.O.Ms.No.68, I&CAD (PW'LA'IV Department, dated 08.04.20O5, members of families who are permanently residing, or practising any trade, occupation or vocation, in the Project Affected Area are eligible for the benefits persons who are notunder the R&R Policy; and that are,permanently residing in the Project Affected Area accordingly, not eligible for the other benefits under the R&R alsoPolicy, except the value of their structures. It was contended that the Writ Petition is hit by laches. POINT FOR DETERIUINATION submissions and having regard to the 11. In view of the rival for material placed on record, the following point arises determination: 6 VRKR,,J Il.P. No.28275 of 2019 Whether the claim of tLrc petitioners to ex-gratia unde" G.C).Ms.No.110, dated O6.09.2018, can be adjucl.icate d in these proceedings? ANALYSIS

12. At the rrutset, the controversy involved in the present case revolves around the entitlement of the petitioners to payment of ex-gratia un<ler G.O.Ms.No.l i0, dated O6.09.201g, issued by the Irrigation and CAD (LA.R&R/A2) Department. To consider the issue involved in the present Writ petition. it is appropriate to refer to tLLe said Government Order, the relevant portions whereof are ertracted hereunder: "2. In the reference 2nd read aboue, the District Collector, Rajanna Sircilla ho's informed that in G.O.Ms.No. j 7, I&CAD (PW:LA.IV-P&R) Dept., dt.03.03.2o10 uas issued declaing tt4anutada uilLage as fully submerged und.er Mid. Manair Reseruoir. Afier issuing the said G.O. there is no deuelopme'nt in the uillage i.e., roads. drains etc. He has ,Pr:fZr: requested to prouicle cash compensation in lieu of R&R Colorry. After examining the matter, it utas requested-to direct the members o.f the Three Men Committee constituted in the reference Sth read aboue to inspect the Manutada uillage and_ submit their report to Gottemment on the matter through Commissioner, R&R .subject for taking further acti.on in the matter.

3. In the re feren.ce 6th reod aboue, the Commissioner, R&R & LA has furnished the report of the 3 men committee, tuhich amcng other recommend.ed that a considerable financial ossistance upto 4.25 lakhs in the Jorm of ex_ gratia mat, be extended to the affected. families utith the condition t,iat theg shall not approach ang legal - fon_tm for enhancemt,nt of propose-d ex_gratia in tiei of all the hampered ,teuelopment of the uilage fo, t".i'g i'ears. fnis tuill enharrcemei, help fi t socio economic conditions ,o! the affectea, Jamilies. of 7 YRKR,J W.P. No.28275 of 2019 4. Gouentment afier careful examination of the aboue proposal, hereby accord pennission to prouide financiol assistance for an amount of Rs.25.84/ - Crore @ Rs.4.25/' LakLts to 608 Project Affected Families under Mid Manair Project in Maruada Village of Boinpalli Mandal, Rajanna the Sircilla District in the fonn of ex-gratia in lieu of all gears hampered deuelopment of uilloge for the last 8 subject to condition ttnt theg shall not approach ang legal forum for enhancement of ex-gratia". 13. A perusal of the above Government Order makes it clear that the Government intended to extend hnancial assistance to the Project Affected Families under the Mid Manair Project. The entitlement of the petitioners, therefore, turns upon whether tJley satisfy the requirements applicable to such families under the relevant Resettlement and Rehabilitation policy a question which is essentially factual in character

14. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the Tahsildar, after conducting the necessary enquiry, recommended their narnes for inclusion in the beneficiaries list vide proceedings dated O4.Ol.2Ol9. However, a-fter the filing of the present Writ Petition, a counter-affidavit came to be filed stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer had directed the Tahsildar to conduct a further enquiry into the question whether the petitioners had been residing in Manwada Village during the three years preceding Notification No.52, dated .-'d 8 VRKR,J W.P. No.28275 of 2019 Tahsildar13.06.2006, and that, pursuant thereto, the thesubmitted a report dated Ol'O2'2O2O stating that petitionershadnotresidedinthevillageatthetimeoftheSocio Economic Survey or during the said three-year period' le arned counsel for the petitioners has extensivetry15. Though argued with regard to the entitiement of the petitioners to the by drawing thebenefit under the said Government Order, attention of ttris Court to the relevant Government Orders' including the rlefinitions of "Family", "Project Affected Family" in the Policy onand "Project I)isplaced Family" contained Resettlement;aldRehabilitationforProjectAffectedAreas' to the 2005, as n'el1 as to various factual aspects relating petitioners' residence in the viilage at the relevant point of time, considered opinion that these disputed this Court is of the the questions of fact cannot appropriately be adjudicated in present proceedings.

there are two reports of the Tahsildar which 16. In particrrlar, take divergent vieu,s on the very szune factual question' The earlier proceedings dated 04.01.2019 resulted in a recommendation in favour of the petitioners, whereas the subsequent report dated Ol.O2.2O2O records a contrary 9 VRKR,J W.P. No.28275 of 2019 position. The material placed before this Court does not disclose the reasons for which the subsequent report departed from the earlier recommendation, nor does it disclose that the petitioners were heard before the said report came to be submitted. In such circumstalces, it would neither be appropriate nor permissible for this Court to adjudicate upon the disputed questions of fact relating to the petitioners' entitlement in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. In so far as the plea of laches is concerned, it is to be noticed that G.O.Ms.No.1 1O was issued on 06.O9.2018, that the proceedings recommending the inclusion of the petitioners were issued on O4.Ol.2Ol9, and that the present Writ Petition came to be filed in the year 2Ol9.In any event, since this Court is not adjudicating the claim of the petitioners on merits, but is remitting the matter for a fresh enquiry, it is open to respondent No.2 to consider the said objection also, along with the other contentions of the parties.

18. It is also to be noticed that, on the own showing of the respondents, persons who are not permanently residing in the Project Affected Area, though ineligible for the other benefits 10 VRKR,J W.P. No.28275 of 20)9 under the R&R Policy, nevertheiess remain entitled to the value of their structures. Since the petitioners assert ownership of the acquired houses, that limb of the claim shall also be examined by respondent No.2, independently of the claim to ex-gratia under G.O.Ms.I{o.110. considers it appropriate19. In the cir:umstances, this Court to direct respor,.dent No.2 to conduct an enquiry by affording an opportunity of 1-rearing to the petitioners and by considering the earlierentirety of the relevant material, including the recommendation of the Tahsildar and the subsequent report. CONCLUSION AND RESULT directing20. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, respondent No 2 to conduct an enquiry afresh with regard to the entitlement of the petitioners to the R&R benefits/ ex-gratia as provided utrder G.O.Ms.No.11O, dated 06.09.2018, in the follou'ing terms: (i) The petitioners sha11 submit a representation, along with all relevalt documents, before respondent No.2 within a period of two (02) r,r,.eel<s from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 1l TRKR,J lI/.P. No.28275 of 2019 such representation, resPondent No'2(ii) Upon receiPt of shall conduct a detailed enquiry aJter affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners

No'2 shall(iii) While conducting the enquiry' respondent considerthedocumentsliledalongwiththepresentWrit Petition,theearlierrecommendation/proceedingsdated O4.01.2O19, the subsequent report dated O1'02 '2020' the theapplicable Resettlement and Rehabilitation policy and Government Orders on the subject, the entitlement of the petitioners to the value of their structures, and anY other Ielevantdocumentsthatmaybesubmittedbythepetitioners. (iv) Respondent No.2 shall pass a reasoned order' in accordancewithlaw,withinaperiodoftwo(02)monthsfrom the date of receipt of the representation, and shall communicate the decision to the Petitioners' 21,. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any petrtroners' oplnlon on the merits of the claim of the Respondent No.2 shall consider the matter independently and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law' be no order as to costs 22. There shall 12 VRKR,J W P No.28275 of20l9 any, 23. As a sequel, the misceilaneous petitions pending, if shail stand closed s D I - r srtErEA[Y A:I'EiRRX //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SECTION To, Buildings' Secretariat (Revenue) Land Acquisition' 1 The Principal Secretary' ii;i;;ireransana HYderabad' il: LrvrD coonv FFC crce I i[*:*.':: ?il;:"l"li1,iffli'J;l::i' D-ivision al Officer, Siricilla collector-cum-Revenue - fi ::t"*'''"ru" B ArPn Court for the State of ; ;;";;sr i:: ,-:::"'ffJ:[|:'-.^ 6 Two CCs tc the GP HYderabad[oUr] ' at +;;";; 7. Two CD CoPies TJ TKS \+ HIGH COURT CC TODAY

DATED: 1210812026 1 Y\E 5TAIf ORDER /J 2326 c AUlj P2o L) ? 2 \ WP.No.28275 of 2019 * * DFsp DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,64\D Yi_ Lb\.8126