Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J.

1. This Writ Petition is originally filed with the relief as under:-

"to issue an Order or Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing preliminary notification, under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013), as amended by the State of Telangana vide Act No.21/2017, vide Collector File No. G1/521/2018 & Gazette No.09/2021, dated 30.01.2021, for acquisition of land an extent of Acres 102.13½ Guntas situated at Mutrajpally village of Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14, 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India, contrary to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and consequently set aside the same in respect of all the actions taken pursuant to the said preliminary notification, including the dispossession of the petitioner from its lands in Survey Nos. 326 & 331, an extent of Acres 42.00 Guntas, situated at Mutrajpally Village, Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District, as null and void and non est in the eye of law, by holding that lands of the petitioner in Sy. Nos. 326 & 331, are the Patta lands and not the Government/Assigned lands as shown in the Dharani Portal."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.78.20 gts., situated in Sy.Nos.326 and 331, i.e., an extent of Acs.60.20 gts., in Sy.No.326 and Acs.18.00 gts., in Sy.No.331 of Mutrajpally Village, Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District, having purchased the same under registered Sale Deed vide document Nos.1722, 1723, 1724, 1725, 1726, 1728, 1729 and 1739 of 2014, dated 08.01.2014, 09.01.2014, 09.04.2014, 10.01.2014, 10.01.2014, 17.01.2014, 17.01.2014, and 24.01.2014 respectively, and respondent No.3 issued a preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act, 2013'), vide proceedings No.G1/521/2018, dated 30.01.2021, proposing to acquire an extent of land Acs.46.29 gts., out of the total extent of land admeasuring Acs.78.20 gts., owned by the petitioner.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that out of the said Acs.46.29 gts., sought to be acquired from out of the land claimed by the petitioner, an extent of Acs.42.00 gts., of land is notified in the name of third parties at Sl.Nos.1 to 23 of the said preliminary notification, though the said persons have no right and title over the subject land and the petitioner herein is the absolute owner of the said extent of the land. The petitioner also claims to have raised objections against the preliminary notification by submitting his objections. From a perusal of the relief sought originally in the Writ Petition, the petitioner is already stated to have been dispossessed from the land admeasuring Acs.42.00 gts., situated in Sy.Nos.326 and 331 of Mutrajpally Village (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject land').

4. A learned Single Judge of this Court by an order, dated 28.04.2022 passed interim order to dispose of the representation/objections submitted by the petitioner under Section 15 of the Act, 2013, and also directed for disposal of the representation, dated 30.03.2021, said to have been submitted by the petitioner and to pass a speaking order. Considering the said representations submitted by the petitioner, in terms of the interim order passed by this Court referred to above, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have passed orders on the said representations by issuing proceedings No.G1/521/2018, dated 03.07.2022 and endorsement bearing letter No.F/1994/2017, dated 28.05.2022.

5. Respondent No.3 herein filed counter affidavit stating that prior to issuance of preliminary notification, enjoyment survey was conducted and in terms of the enjoyment survey, the names of the persons who are in actual possession are notified at Sl.Nos.1 to 23 of the preliminary notification and after issuance of preliminary notification, the said persons have come forward expressing their willingness for the proposed acquisition and received compensation by negotiation for an extent of Acs.37.00 gts., out of Acs.42.00 gts., and possession of the said Acs.37.00 gts., was taken over by the Government and the house site pattas were also distributed to the displaced families. It is further stated that the petitioner is not in possession of any extent of land admeasuring Acs.78.20 gts., as claimed by it and during enjoyment survey, the petitioner is found to be in possession of an extent of Acs.2.01 gts., and one Sri Bukka Venkatesham is found to be in possession of an extent of Acs.4.29 gts., and the said extent of land is still in possession of the petitioner and Sri Bukka Venkatesham, who is the partner of the petitioner firm and the respondents are not interfering with the possession of the said extent of land and the same would be acquired by following due process of law under the provisions of the Act, 2013.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner herein came forward to seek amendment of prayer and also sought permission to raise additional grounds by filing I.A.Nos.7 and 8 of 2022 on 01.09.2022. The said applications were ordered by this Court on 30.11.2022. Thereby the petitioner made a challenge to the validity of the preliminary notification, dated 31.01.2021, issued under Section 11(1) of the Act, 2013, on various grounds including on the ground that the said preliminary notification lapsed by efflux of time.

7. Heard Sri G.Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General.

8. The dispute in this Writ Petition is in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.42.00 situated in Sy.Nos.326 and 331 of Mutrajpally Village, Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District. The petitioner is claiming to be the rightful owner and possessor of the said extent of land having purchased under various registered Sale Deeds referred to above. The said extent of land is admittedly notified for acquisition by issuing a preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Act, 2013. Hence, various pleadings contained in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the counter and additional counter filed by the respondents with regard to the nature of the land being patta land or Government land does not require any consideration, as the question of acquisition would arise only in case of Patta lands.

9. As already noted above, initially there was no challenge to the preliminary notification in question and it is only by way of amendment, a challenge was made to the impugned notification, dated 30.01.2021. As is seen from the additional grounds raised in the Writ Petition through I.A.No.8 of 2022, the challenge to the notification, on the following grounds:

"(i) That the purpose for which the subject land is sought to be acquired is not an infrastructure or Irrigation Project within the meaning of Section 10A(b) of the Act, 2013, as the same is for providing Rehabilitation to the displaced families of eight Villages/Habitations, which were submerged in Sri Komuravelli Mallana Sagar Reservoir under Kaleshwaram Project and as such the exemption granted under G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 30.06.2017 is not available for the impugned acquisition proceedings.

(ii) That the impugned notification is contrary to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.8382, 4102 and 11224 of 2019 and the undertaking given by the learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.

(iii) That the impugned notification is vague and suffers from ambiguity for want of giving the sub-division survey numbers and the nature of the land as to whether the same is Government land or Patta land.

(iv) That the impugned notification has lapsed as the same is shown to have been extended by issuing an anti dated order, dated 28.01.2022."

10. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order, dated 28.04.2022, granted interim order directing the respondents to maintain status quo.

11. Sri G.Rajashekar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has advanced his arguments on the grounds as noted above and placed reliance on an interim orders passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.34373 of 2021, 34476 of 2022 and 8382 of 2019.

12. Though, at the first instance, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the interim orders passed by this Court in other Writ Petitions referred to above appears to be attractive, but on detailed examination of the issue, this Court does not find any substance in the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the following reasons:-

13. The impugned notification, dated 30.01.2021 itself indicates that the subject land is sought to be acquired for public purpose namely for construction of houses to the displaced persons in Sri Komuravelli Mallana Sagar Reservoir under Kaleshwaram Project. In the light of the said purpose, as notified in the preliminary notification, the land in question is sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of houses for the persons who are displaced because of the construction of Kaleshwaram Project. The persons who are displaced due to construction of Kaleshwaram Project, i.e. due to acquisition of the houses/lands of such persons due to submergence of their lands in Kaleshwaram Project or in connection with the reservoirs under the said project is not in dispute. All such persons are required to be rehabilitated under the provisions of the Act, 2013, and it is only on providing such Rehabilitation, the acquisition proceedings in respect of land acquired for the purpose of the Kaleshwaram Project would be complete. It is in the said process of completing the acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Act, 2013, in respect of the lands that were submerged, the subject land is sought to be acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation i.e., construction of houses or for the purpose of allotting house sites to the persons/families, who are displaced because of the Kaleshwaram Project. Therefore, the acquisition in question cannot be said to be for a purpose otherwise than for Kaleshwaram Project. There is no dispute that the Kaleshwaram Project is an infrastructure Project. Therefore the exemption granted for the Kaleshwaram Project from the application of the provisions of Chapter II and III of the Act, 2013, under G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 30.06.2017 is equally applicable to the impugned notification. Hence, the submission of the learned counsel of the petitioner on the first ground is liable to be rejected.

14. The second ground is by placing reliance on the orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.8382, 4102 and 11224 of 2019. In the considered view of this Court the said orders or the under taking recorded therein has no application to the facts the case on hand as the said orders were passed by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the said cases and the same under no circumstances can be extended to the facts of the case on hand and the same is also irrelevant in view of the observations made hereinabove about the nature of land being Patta land.

15. Third ground of attack is basing on the alleged vagueness in the preliminary notification. The petitioner herein could able to identify the land being claimed by him from the impugned notification and also furnished the details of the said land and the serial numbers at which the said land is notified under the preliminary notification i.e., at Sl.Nos.1 to 23 of the preliminary notification. Though the petitioner claims to have purchased the said extent of land under registered Sale Deeds referred to above, admittedly the name of the petitioner is not mutated in the Revenue records. The preliminary notification is published basing on the information and the material that is available with the respondents together with the enjoyment survey that was conducted by them and the same is open for objections and the objections that are raised with regard to the nature of land, identity of the land, extent of land held by the persons, who are entitled for compensation etc., are all required to be considered by the respondents while conducting enquiry under Section 15 of the Act, 2013. After considering all the objections raised by the persons whose names are notified and third parties who may have claim over the land that is notified for acquisition, a declaration under Section 19 of the Act, 2013, would be published with accurate details of the lands that are sought to be acquired finally. Therefore, any vagueness or short comings and the alleged ambiguity in the impugned notification cannot be a ground to undo the said notification. In the instant case, the petitioner could able to ascertain the land that is being claimed by it and raised objections before respondent Nos.2 and 3 and those objections were answered by the respondents by issuing proceedings, dated 28.05.2022 and Endorsement, dated 03.07.2022. The view of this Court gains support from the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A v. J.Sivaprakasam and others (2011) 1 SCC 330, wherein it was held as under at paragraph No.29, which reads as under:-

"If the newspapers in which the notification is published were circulating in the locality, but did not have a reasonably wide circulation in the locality, then neither the notification under Section 4(1) nor the consequential acquisition proceedings, will become vitiated automatically. If the person aggrieved, apart from demonstrating that the two newspapers did not have reasonably wide circulation in the locality, also asserts that was consequence, he did not have notice of the proposed acquisition that was provided for in Section 4(1) of the Act, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the acquisition to the extent of the land of such person will be vitiated. But if such assertion is rebutted by the acquiring authority by placing evidence to show that the person concerned had in fact notice (as for example where he participated in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act), the acquisition will not be vitiated on the ground of violation of Section 4-A of the Act".

Further the petitioner for the reasons best known has not chosen to challenge the said proceedings and the endorsement issued by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 or the findings recorded therein. Hence, the third ground also does not stand.

16. The fourth ground stating that the preliminary notification issued under Section 11(1) of the Act, 2013, stand rescinded for want of making a declaration under sub section (1) of Section 19 of the Act, 2013, within a period of 12 months on the ground that the extension of time in terms of second proviso of sub section (7) of Section 19 of the Act, 2013, was an anti dated and notified at a later date is concerned, this Court is not inclined to consider such objections as admittedly there is an extension granted through proceedings No.G1/521/2018, dated 28.01.2022 and the same was published in Telangana Gazette Part-1 extraordinary bearing No.41 of 2022, dated 28.01.2022. For yet another reason also this Court is not inclined to examine the said aspect, as the possession of the land to an extent of Acs.37.00 gts., is already taken over and house sites pattas were granted in favour of the displaced persons long back with the consent of the persons in enjoyment of the same and the claim of the petitioner can at the best be for payment of compensation in respect of the said extent of the land, subject to establishing his right. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned notification, dated 30.01.2021 and the acquisition proceedings in question.

17. Then coming to the claim of the petitioner over the land admeasuring Acs.42.00 gts., out of the total extent of Acs.102.00 gts., notified under the impugned notification is concerned, there is no dispute about the petitioner and its partner being in possession of an extent of Acs.2.01 gts., and Acs.4.29 gts., respectively and their entitlement for compensation in respect of the said extent of the land and the same is not disputed by the respondents in the counter and additional counter filed herein and the same can be processed further under the provisions of the Act, 2013. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner for an extent of Acs.37.00 gts., the possession of which is stated to have been taken over from the persons whose names are notified under the impugned notification is required to be examined. As is evident from the counter affidavit and additional counter, the respondents having claimed to have conducted a survey prior to the issuance of the impugned notification notified the names of the persons who are in actual possession of the said extent of Acs.37.00 gts., in the impugned notification and further claimed that, on their willingness to receive compensation on negotiation, they were paid the said compensation in terms of the agreement arrived at between them. As already noted above, the petitioner herein raised its objections against the land notified at Sl.Nos.1 to 23 of the impugned notification for an extent of Acs.42.00 gts., including the above said Acs.37.00 gts., of the land through their representation, dated 30.03.2021 (though stated to have been submitted on 01.04.2021). The respondents claimed to have paid compensation even before expiry of sixty days' of time from the date of the impugned preliminary notification. Such an action of the respondents in disbursing the compensation even before the expiry of sixty days of time provided for raising objections solely basing upon an enjoyment survey is totally uncalled for and unwarranted. By such an action, the respondents have defeated the very purpose of calling for objections on the proposal made under the preliminary notification by giving sixty days of time. Therefore, the action of the respondents in paying the compensation to the persons whose names are notified under the impugned notification cannot be accepted.

18. Furthermore, from the contents of the counter affidavit and the additional counter affidavit filed in this Writ Petition, there is nothing to indicate that respondent No.3 has passed any consent award or issued any proceedings authorizing for payment of compensation in respect of the said Acs.37.00 gts., land in favour of the persons whose names are notified under the preliminary notification and it is not understandable how the respondents can pay compensation without there being an award passed in terms of the provisions of the Act, 2013, read with amendments thereon be it general award or consent award. In view of the rival claim made by the petitioner, which is based upon registered Sale Deeds and also by placing reliance on the entries made on Dharani Portal in respect of the subject lands, wherein the names of its vendors are stated to have been updated. Respondent No.3 in normal circumstances ought to have referred the matter to the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 (for short 'Authority'), after passing an Award under the provisions of the said Act, 2013. But the same is not done in the instant case. Thus, the respondents have deprived the petitioner opportunity of laying a legal claim for payment of compensation in respect of the subject land as the respondents paid compensation as per their whims and fancies in favour of a set of claimants.

19. Further, another important aspect required to be considered by this Court is that, as is evident from the counter and additional counter the basis for payment of compensation in respect of land to an extent of Acs.37.00 gts., in favour of the persons to whom it was paid is basing upon an enjoyment survey that is said to have been conducted by the respondents. Primarily the right to claim compensation is for the persons, who are having a rightful title over the subject land being the owner of the said land. Mere possession or enjoyment over a piece of land itself does not create any exclusive right to claim compensation. The possession or enjoyment may be with the consent of the rightful owner subject to various terms and conditions or agreement as may be agreed upon between the title holder and the person in possession. Therefore, the action of the respondents in paying compensation basing upon enjoyment survey cannot be accepted and if such an action of the respondents is acknowledged by this Court and are allowed to adopt such procedure, the same would lead to a situation of allowing the surveying officials to decide the right, title and entitlement for compensation at their whims and fancies without there being any substantial material on record that too behind the back of the rightful owners. Thus, the action of the respondents in paying compensation basing upon an alleged agreement or understanding with the persons in enjoyment over the land in question cannot be accepted. As a consequence the action of the respondents in paying compensation in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.37.00 gts., in favour of persons basing upon enjoyment survey, prima facie appears to be illegal. But this Court is not making any such declaration as the said persons are not made parties to this Writ Petition. Accordingly, it is declared that the petitioner is entitled for consideration of its claim for payment of compensation in respect of the said extent of Acs.37.00 gts., irrespective of the payment already made. In case if the respondents or the Authority comes to the conclusion that such persons are erroneously paid compensation, it is open for them to recover the same in accordance with law..

20. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the acquisition proceedings pursuant to the impugned notification. The respondents may proceed to take further steps in accordance with law and conclude the proceedings. The respondents are further directed, if necessary to refer the dispute with regard to entitlement for drawing compensation in respect of Acs.37.00 gts., possession of which is already taken over situated in Sy.Nos.326 and 331 of Mutrajpally Village to the Authority under Section 64 read with 77 of the Act, 2013. On such reference, the petitioner is at liberty to put forth its claim for payment of compensation or on the quantum of compensation etc., in accordance with law.

21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.