ORDER : M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J. 1. Kochhaguttapalli village is a hamlet of Allipur village, Chelkalapalli Gram Panchayat, Chinnakodur Mandal in Siddipet District of the Telangana State. 2. The State proposed to acquire agricultural lands and houses of the petitioners in this village for Anatagirisagar Reservoir (also called as Annapurna Reservoir). 3. The Anatagirisagar Reservoir is one of a series of reservoirs proposed by the State of Telangana as part of Kaleswaram Irrigation Project. 4. Under this project, the water from the river Godavari would be transported for drinking and agricultural purposes through a series of lifts for storage and distribution of water from a place called Medigadda situated in Jayashankar Bhupalpally District and the said project envisages construction of reservoirs in Siddipet District such as Ananthagirisagar Reservoir (3.5 TMC), Ranganayakasagar Reservoir (3 TMC), Sri. Komaravelli Mallanna Sagar Reservoir (50 TMC) and Kondapochamma Sagar Reservoir (15 TMC). 5. It is not in dispute that under the Kaleswaram Irrigation project, the Godavari River water would flow from Medigadda to Kondapochammasagar through Mid-Manair, Anantagirisagar and Ranganayaka sagar reservoirs. 6. The water would be lifted from Medigadda (the Zero point) where the Full Reservoir Level (FRL) is 100m to Kondapochammasagar whose FRL is 618m i.e. the water is lifted 518m vertically in a phased manner-reservoir after reservoir. 7. Water from these reservoirs would be utilized in the said district and would also be supplied to more than 9 neighboring districts for agriculture purpose, besides supply of drinking water to the State Capital of Hyderabad. It is a prestigious project undoubtedly conceived in public interest. 8. The agricultural lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired in July, 2016 through a process of ‘voluntary acquisition’ i.e. by entering into agreements/sale-deeds with allegedly ‘willing’ farmers invoking a G.O.Ms. No. 123 Revenue (JA&LA) Department dated 30.7.2015. 9. This G.O.Ms. No. 123 dated 30.07.2015 contemplates a consensual sale of lands by land owners to the State for a consideration to be voluntarily agreed by the land owner and the Procurement Agency. Its contents will be discussed more in detail later in this order. 10. Later in 2017, the houses of the petitioners were sought to be acquired by invoking Act 30 of 2013. W.P. No. 3420 of 2019 filed in February, 2019: 11. According to the petitioners in W.P. No. 3420 of 2019, initial notification for purchase of their agricultural lands was issued invoking G.O.Ms. 10. Later in 2017, the houses of the petitioners were sought to be acquired by invoking Act 30 of 2013. W.P. No. 3420 of 2019 filed in February, 2019: 11. According to the petitioners in W.P. No. 3420 of 2019, initial notification for purchase of their agricultural lands was issued invoking G.O.Ms. No. 123 dated 30.07.2015 in File No. G3/1990/2016 dated 29.05.2016 by the Office of the District Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy (published on 30.05.2016 in the local newspapers) (Ex.P.1) even before the petitioners gave consent for selling their agricultural lands to the State by wrongly mentioning in the said Notification that the petitioners had given such consent; that petitioners were informed that their lands would be submerged under the proposed Anantagirisagar Reservoir as part of the Kaleswaram Project and petitioners had no option but to surrender their lands for the rate of Rs. 6 lakh per acre offered by the Government; that petitioners were not told anything about their rights and they felt threatened and helpless as their lands were already notified in the Notification G3/1990/2016 dated 29.05.2016 published on 30.05.2016 in the local newspapers (Ex.P.1); that the officials threatened that if they did not agree, their agricultural lands would be acquired under Act 30 of 2013 in which case they will only get Rs. 2 lakh per acre as compensation; that petitioners were not given any time or opportunity to take legal advice as police had clamped Section 144 Cr.P.C. in the area restricting entry of outsiders; and petitioners were forced to sign agreements which were in English language, which the petitioners did not understand. Copy of one such sale-deed dated 13.07.2006 executed by 6th petitioner and his family members is filed as Ex.P.5. 12. They contended that no official explained the contents of the agreements/sale-deeds to them, that they were called to the Sub-Registrar’s Office in July, 2016 and made to sign the documents. According to them, no amount was paid for structures or trees in their lands and they were informed that they would be paid the same later after conducting of survey and enumeration of the structures and trees. 13. Petitioners contend that the respondent-authorities told them while entering into agreement that as per G.O.Ms. According to them, no amount was paid for structures or trees in their lands and they were informed that they would be paid the same later after conducting of survey and enumeration of the structures and trees. 13. Petitioners contend that the respondent-authorities told them while entering into agreement that as per G.O.Ms. No. 123, the consideration/sale price mentioned in the agreements will not include R&R Entitlements or values of structures and trees and that possession of their lands would be taken only after payment of R&R Entitlements to the land owners as well as landless persons dependent upon the lands. 14. It is stated that in December, 2018 local Revenue and Irrigation officials informed them that they should stop cultivation of their lands after the Kharif season and that their lands would be taken away after the Sankranthi Festival of 2019 in January, 2019 and that they refused to pay Rehabilitation & Resettlement (for short ‘R&R’) entitlements to the petitioners on the ground that the consideration paid to the petitioners was all inclusive. 15. Petitioners contend that respondents cannot give effect to the sale-deeds and take possession of the lands without completing R&R entitlements to all eligible project-effected families. 16. Petitioners further contended that a notification dated 20.12.2017 under Section 11 (1) of the Act 30 of 2013 was issued for acquisition of houses of the petitioners citing submergence under the same Reservoir and it was published on 28.12.2017 in Gazette No. 291/2017 and also in the Eenadu Telugu newspaper. 17. According to them, no Grama Sabha was conducted under Section 11(2) and there was no wide publicity for the same and so the petitioners could not object to it under Section 15 within the time; that this notification lapsed by 26.12.2018 as no orders extending it under II Proviso to Section 19(7) were passed, and consequently the said Section 11(1) notification became illegal and invalid. 18. Petitioners also contend that deprivation of their houses by the respondents occurring in December, 2017 by virtue of the above notification, also entitles them to separate R&R entitlements in addition to R&R entitlements which they would have got for deprivation of their lands in July, 2016 and without paying them these entitlements, they cannot be dispossessed. 19. 18. Petitioners also contend that deprivation of their houses by the respondents occurring in December, 2017 by virtue of the above notification, also entitles them to separate R&R entitlements in addition to R&R entitlements which they would have got for deprivation of their lands in July, 2016 and without paying them these entitlements, they cannot be dispossessed. 19. In W.P. No. 3420 of 2019, the petitioners question (a) the validity of action of respondents in dispossessing the petitioners from their lands in Allipur revenue Village, Chinnakodur Mandal, Siddipet District procured under G.O.Ms. No. 123 dated 30.7.2015 vide File No. G3/1990/2016 dated 29.5.2016; (b) the action of the respondents in proceeding with the acquisition of houses and structures of petitioners in Kochhaguttapalli village, H/o Allipur, Chelkalapalli Gram Panchayat, Chinnakodur Mandal, Siddipet District based on a lapsed notification issued under Sec. 11(1) of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act 30 of 2013’) and which was published vide Gazette No. 291/2017 dated 20.12.2017 pursuant to District Collector’s File No. G1/158/2017 dated 20.12.2017; (c) the denial of Rehabilitation and Resettlement entitlements to the petitioners as per the Act before taking physical possession of their lands and houses under Section 31-A introduced in the Act by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Telangana Amendment) Act, 2016 (Act 21 of 2017). W.P. No. 9146 of 2019 filed in April, 2019: 20. In Writ Petition No. 9146 of 2019 the petitioners reiterated the pleas raised by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3420 of 2019. 21. They also referred to an extension order allegedly issued on 28.02.2019 of the Section 11(1) notification dated 20.12.2017 proposing to acquire the houses of the petitioners referred to above, and contended that such extension cannot be made after the expiry/lapse of the said notification on 26.12.2018. They also referred to notices dated 12.04.2019 issued by the Special Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition, Unit-I, Siddipet regarding the holding of Grama Sabha on 15.04.2019 and a proposed public hearing on 02.05.2019 by the Project Administrator/Joint Collector, Siddipet into the representations and objections raised in the Grama Sabha and contend that the illegality of the same was also brought to the notice of the respondents in the Grama Sabha. Collector, Land Acquisition, Unit-I, Siddipet regarding the holding of Grama Sabha on 15.04.2019 and a proposed public hearing on 02.05.2019 by the Project Administrator/Joint Collector, Siddipet into the representations and objections raised in the Grama Sabha and contend that the illegality of the same was also brought to the notice of the respondents in the Grama Sabha. Reference is also made to written representation dated 22.04.2019 (Ex.P.4) submitted by the petitioners objecting to the proposed action of the respondents and requesting them not to proceed further on the basis of the lapse of Section 11(1) notification. 22. In W.P. 9146 of 2019, the petitioners question the action of the respondents in proceeding with the acquisition of houses and structures of petitioners in Kochhaguttapalli village, H/o Allipur, Chelkalapalli Gram Panchayat, Chinnakodur Mandal, Siddipet District based on a lapsed notification issued under Sec. 11(1) of the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 and which was published vide Gazette No. 291/2017 dated 20.12.2017 pursuant to District Collector’s File No. G1/158/2017 dated 20.12.2017. W.P. No. 25664 of 2019 filed in November, 2019: 23. In November, 2019, W.P. No. 25664 of 2019 was filed alleging that there is discrimination shown to unmarried adult members of the families of project affected persons in relation of award of Rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements as per the Act as compared to married members of such families. 24. Petitioners in this writ petition are majors but unmarried persons living along with their parents in Kochaguttapally Village, Chinnakodur Mandal, Siddipet District. The agricultural lands in the said village were acquired for the purpose of construction of Ananthagirisagar Reservoir invoking G.O.Ms. No. 123 dated 30.07.2015 in July, 2016 allegedly by voluntary sale. 25. Petitioners contend that they were working in the lands of their parents and others in the said village and earning their livelihood and contributing it to the income of their families. Because of acquisition of agricultural lands of their parents and others, they contend that they lost their livelihood opportunities as well as income; that they were also informed about acquisition of the houses under the Notification dated 20.12.2017 issued under Section 11(1) of Act 30 of 2013, which was published on 28.12.2017 in Eenadu Telugu Newspaper. They contend that there was no local publication done, no Grama Sabha was conducted and they could not file objections within the stipulated time of 60 days. They contend that there was no local publication done, no Grama Sabha was conducted and they could not file objections within the stipulated time of 60 days. According to them, the names of their parents in whose names the said houses stand were mentioned in the notification issued under Section 11(1) of the Act. They contend that no declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act was issued, but a copy of socio-economic survey report was placed in the panchayat mentioning their names as part of the family of their parents, though they were majors. 26. They contend that as per Section 2(m) of the Act 30 of 2013 and explanation thereto, they have to be treated as a “separate family” for the purpose of R&R entitlements. 27. They contend that when they approached the respondents, the respondents informed that the said aspect did not matter. 28. According to them, the respondents had declared a package of Rs. 5 lakhs and a plot of 250 sq. yards to be given as R&R package to adult unmarried members, like the petitioners, but not the full-fledged R&R package to be given to a family under the Act. 29. Counsel for the petitioners referred to G.O.Rt. No. 282 Irrigation and CAD (LA.R&R/A2) Department dated 11.07.2019, which directs that the Government would pay Rs. 7,50,000/- per family and Rs. 5,00,000/- only to unmarried youth, who have crossed 18 years of age, along with either the allotment of open plot or 250 sq. yards or construction of 2BHK house or payment of Rs. 5.04 lakh amount in lieu of 2BHK house in respect of Kochaguttapally habitation and contended that discrimination is being shown to petitioners, who are unmarried adult members of project affected families. 30. They contend that without paying the R&R entitlements under Act 30 of 2013 as amended by Act 21 of 2017, the respondents threaten to release water into the Ananthagiri Reservoir by 3rd or 4th week of November, 2019 and this would result in submergence of their houses and they had not entered into any voluntary agreement with the government to leave their houses. They contend that they cannot be forcibly evicted by the respondents unless they are paid full R&R package of Rs. 7,50,000/- and are also given double bed room house as per the Act 30 of 2013 as amended by Act 21 of 2017. 31. They contend that they cannot be forcibly evicted by the respondents unless they are paid full R&R package of Rs. 7,50,000/- and are also given double bed room house as per the Act 30 of 2013 as amended by Act 21 of 2017. 31. They therefore sought a Writ of Mandamus to declare the said action of the respondents in denying them R&R benefits on par with married members of project affected families as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional, contrary to Act 30 of 2013 and direct the respondents to pay/give them the said benefits. Events after filing of these Writ Petitions: 32. On 29.4.2019 in I.A. No. 1 of 2019 in Writ Petition No. 9146 of 2019, a learned single Judge of this Court recorded a prima facie finding about the lapsing of the notification dated 20.12.2017 issued under Section 11(1) of the Act by 26.12.2018 for acquiring the houses of the petitioners therein and granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the said notification. 33. On 06.12.2019, the Green Bench of this Court passed a Common Order in W.P. Nos. 7549, 10393, 11714, 9146, 3420, 26421 and 13252 of 2019 stating that water be not released into the Ananthagirisagar Reservoir till the following week when the Bench proposed to hear it. 34. This interim order was subsequently extended on 20.12.2019 for three weeks, on 03.01.2020 up to 24.01.2020, on 29.01.2020 till 05.02.2020, on 05.02.2020 for two weeks, and on 19.02.2020 for two weeks in W.P. No. 3420 of 2019. 35. This interim order was subsequently extended on 20.12.2019 for three weeks, on 03.01.2020 up to 24.01.2020, on 29.01.2020 till 05.02.2020, on 05.02.2020 for two weeks, on 19.02.2020 for two weeks, on 26.02.2020 for two weeks, and on 11.03.2020 for four weeks in W.P. No. 9146 of 2019. 36. Thereafter, as per orders dated 27.03.2020 in WP (Urgent) 1 of 2020 of a Full Bench of this Court presided over by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, in the circumstances prevalent because of the Corona Virus Pandemic, all interim orders were extended up to 07.06.2020 (Annexure-I to this order). 37. However notwithstanding the said interim orders dated 6.12.2019, water was admittedly released into the Anantgirisagar reservoir on 18.4.2020 (according to counter filed by the respondents in W.P. No. 3420 and 9146 of 2019). 38. 37. However notwithstanding the said interim orders dated 6.12.2019, water was admittedly released into the Anantgirisagar reservoir on 18.4.2020 (according to counter filed by the respondents in W.P. No. 3420 and 9146 of 2019). 38. According to the petitioners, on the midnight of 19.4.2020, they were all forcibly evicted from their houses by the respondents with the help of about 500 police men, the petitioners were not even allowed to take their belongings from their houses, and their houses were demolished. Urgent Memo in USR No. 19691/2020 filed by counsel for petitioners on 20.4.2020: 39. An Urgent Memo in USR No. 19691/2020 was filed by the counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 3420 of 2019 and 9146 of 2019 on 20.04.2020 bringing on record the coercion exercised by the respondents and in particular, by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, for the previous four to five days on the petitioners forcing them to enter into agreements with the State Government and accept the compensation and R&R amounts offered by the Government; that some of the petitioners, unable to withstand the immense pressure and threats of demolition of their houses, signed on blank agreements, which were in English, and received cheques for certain amounts; that on the late afternoon of 19.04.2020, about 300 to 400 police in several vehicles arrived near the houses of the petitioners, confined the petitioners, who did not enter into agreements, in their houses, and did not allow any one from outside to enter the village; that many petitioners, under the said coercion, were forced to sign the agreements; that police and officials of the revenue department forcibly removed furniture, material and goods in the houses of the petitioners, dragged the petitioners out of their houses and demolished them in the middle of the night of 19.04.2020 rendering them shelterless. 40. 40. It was also stated that that petitioners 9 to 11 in W.P. No. 9146 of 2019 and petitioners 1, 5, 6, 11, 13, 14, 25, 26, 29 in W.P. No. 3420 of 2019 were forcibly evicted from their houses and they were demolished rendering them shelterless; petitioners in W.P. No. 25664 of 2019, who were project displaced persons, were also rendered homeless by the respondents without providing them their lawful R&R entitlements; and that some of the petitioners by name Thaduri Narsaiah, Thaduri Laxmi, Kommagalla Narsavva, Kommagalla Lakshmi, Thaduri Lachavva, Lakke Narsaiah, Elkathurthi Lakshman, Elkathurthi Narsavva, Thaduri Nagaraju, Thaduri Mallavva and Thaduri Eshwar, (Petitioner Nos. 5, 11 to 14, 25, 26 and 29 in W.P. No. 3420 of 2019 and Petitioners No. 9 to 11 in W.P. No. 9146 of 2019) belong to the Scheduled Caste community and their eviction in the above manner would attract the provisions of the SC&ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. 41. On 21.04.2020, the Bench presided over by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice took the said Urgent Memo on record and directed the Advocate General to file his counter to the allegations made in the said Memo filed by the counsel for the petitioner and adjourned the matter to 24.04.2020. 42. On 24.04.2020, a common counter affidavit dated 23.04.2020 was filed on behalf of respondent No. 6 by the Advocate General in W.P. No. 3420 and 9146 of 2019. The contents of this counter affidavit will be discussed later. 43. On 24.04.2020, the Bench presided over by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice directed listing of W.P. No. 25664 of 2019 along with W.P. No. 3420 of 2019 and W.P. No. 9146 of 2019 on 30.04.2020, obviously satisfied about the urgent need to hear these matters, and directed the counsel for the petitioners to file his rejoinder by then. 44. When the matter was listed on 30.04.2020, the counsel for the petitioners informed the Court that because of lockdown imposed by the State and the Central Governments, he could not meet his clients and permission should be accorded for his clients to meet him. The Division Bench directed the State to ensure that the petitioners are able to come to Hyderabad to meet the counsel for the petitioners and adjourned the matter to 13.05.2020. 45. The Division Bench directed the State to ensure that the petitioners are able to come to Hyderabad to meet the counsel for the petitioners and adjourned the matter to 13.05.2020. 45. On 12.05.2020, the counsel for the petitioners filed his rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 6. The part hearing of these matters on 13.5.2020 by this Bench: 46. On 13.05.2020, these three matters were listed before this Bench and arguments of counsel for petitioner were heard. At request of the learned Advocate General, who stated that he had not read the files, the matter had been posted to 19.05.2020. 47. On 13.5.2020, W.P. Nos. 37769 of 2017, 16344 of 2019, 21740 of 2019 and 27575 of 2019 also relating to acquisition of lands for the same Anathagirisagar Reservoir had been listed and were heard in part and adjourned to 14.5.2020 at the request of the Advocate General, who again stated that he had not read the papers in those cases. 48. On 14.05.2020, a Memo (Annexure-II to this order) was filed by the Advocate General not only in the instant three writ petitions, but also the writ petitions referred to in para-39 above and seeking adjournment of all these matters till the High Court is reopened for regular functioning after pandemic ceases stating that it would be difficult to advance arguments for final hearing in these Writ Petitions, at that time. 49. Counsel for the petitioners filed a reply to the said memo on 15.05.2020 (Annexure-III to this order) refuting the said allegations and pointing out the injustice that would be caused to the petitioners, who had already been evicted forcibly on 19.04.2020 in the midnight and were made to sign agreements under coercion by the respondents. 50. Section 38 of Act 30 of 2013 which states: “38. 50. Section 38 of Act 30 of 2013 which states: “38. Power to take possession of land to be acquired: (1) The Collector shall take possession of land after ensuring that full payment of compensation as well as rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements are paid or tendered to the entitled persons within a period of three months for the compensation and a period of six months for the monetary part of rehabilitation and resettlements entitlements listed in the Second Schedule commencing from the date of the award made under section 30: Provided that the components of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Package in the Second and Third Schedules that relate to infrastructural entitlements shall be provided within a period of eighteen months from the date of the award: Provided further that in case of acquisition of land for irrigation or hydel project, being a public purpose, the rehabilitation and resettlement shall be completed six months prior to submergence of the lands acquired. (2) The Collector shall be responsible for ensuring that the rehabilitation and resettlement process is completed in all its aspects before displacing the affected families.” When: (a) the very purpose of the Act 30 of 2013 is to lessen the hardship of owners of land. (b) Section 38 in fact mandates that the land owner can only be dispossessed by the Collector after ensuring full payment of compensation as well as rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements are paid or tendered to the entitled persons within a period of three months for the compensation and a period of six months for the monetary part of rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements listed in the 2nd Schedule to the Act. (c) the 2nd proviso to Section 38 states that in case of acquisition of land for irrigation or hydel project, the rehabilitation and resettlement shall be completed six months prior to submergence of the lands acquired. (d) it is admitted in para-2 of the Memo that the previous Bench presided over by the Hon’ble Chief Justice had permitted the State to release water into the subject lands which were acquired for the purpose of Kaleswaram Lift Irrigation Project (Order dated 01.05.2020 in W.P. No. 35059 of 2017, 7549, 10393 and 11714 of 2019, Annexure IV to this order) (the Anatagirisagar reservoir was inaugurated on 18.4.2020 itself according to the counter filed in W.P. Nos. 3420 and 9146 of 2019 by 6th respondent on behalf of all respondents and water was released to submerge the agricultural lands and houses of petitioners), resulting in their dispossession. The learned Advocate-General cannot contend that this Bench should ignore the mandate of the statute contained in Section 38 (to dispossess only after payment of compensation and R&R benefits), that it should also ignore the timelines specified in it including the timeline for R&R mentioned in the 2nd proviso i.e. to ensure R&R payments entitlements are settled 6 months before submergence of the lands acquired, and simply adjourn the matter to an unknown future date. In fact, it is the above considerations which appear to have persuaded the Bench presided by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, to treat these matters too as urgent and list them on 20.4.2020 (though as per the High Court notification ROC No. 394/SO/2020 dated 13.4.2020 [Annexure-V to this order] valid till 30.4.2020, only dire urgent matters were to be taken up) so that the State can advance submissions and the matters can be disposed of before the release of water by the inauguration of the Ananthasagar Reservoir and the Kondapochammasagar Reservoir. We may point out that the learned Advocate General not only did not object to the listing of these matters on 20.4.2020 for hearing before the Division bench presided over by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, though there was a lockdown in force, but in fact he, on behalf of the respondents, wanted the listing of the matters urgently for disposal before the inauguration of the Anantagirsagar Reservoir.” Listing of the matters on 15.6.2020 before this Bench: 51. The instant three Writ Petitions were not listed for one month thereafter and came to be listed before this Bench which had been specially constituted (Annexure-VI-Cause-list dated 15.06.2020) (the regular Bench as per Roster notified by the High Court being one of us (MSRJ) with Justice Amarnath Goud since 18.5.2020), only on 15.06.2020, a Monday. 52. By that time, the High Court had cancelled its summer vacation (Annexure-VII Notification R.O.C. No. 1202/SO/2019, dated 29.04.2020) and was hearing all matters regularly by way of video conferencing. So the State or the Advocate General cannot plead any difficulty in arguing the matters since the petitioners were already evicted by then and they allege coercion in their dispossession of lands and houses. 53. So the State or the Advocate General cannot plead any difficulty in arguing the matters since the petitioners were already evicted by then and they allege coercion in their dispossession of lands and houses. 53. The cause list for hearing of the instant part-heard Writ Petitions by this Bench on 15.6.2020 had been notified on the evening of 12.06.2020 itself. 54. Yet, when the matter was listed at 10.30 a.m. on 15.06.2020 before this Special Bench, Sri. B. Ramulu, an Assistant Government Pleader representing the Advocate General sought adjournment on the ground that counter affidavit was not filed in W.P. No. 25664 of 2019, the connected Writ Petition. 55. This request was refused pointing out that there is grave urgency in the matter in view of the release of water into the Ananthagirisagar Reservoir on 18.04.2020 itself (as per the counter of the 6th respondent in W.P. Nos.3420 and 9146 of 2019) and in view of the urgency noted by the earlier Bench presided over by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 24.04.2020 to list these matters on 30.04.2020 and also taking note of the fact that these matters had been heard in part by this Bench on 13.05.2020 itself. 56. This Bench also took note of the fact that for the previous seven months, though several opportunities had been given in W.P. No. 25664 of 2019 on 21.11.2019, 20.12.2019, 03.01.2020, and 30.04.2020, they had not been availed of by the respondents. 57. So the counsel for the petitioners was heard and the matter was directed to be called at 2.30 p.m. to hear the submissions of the learned Advocate General. 58. At 02:30 p.m. on 15.06.2020, the learned Advocate-General appeared before this Bench through video-conferencing and stated again that he had not read the papers in these cases and again sought adjournment. 59. This request was rejected as it was considered to be not bona-fide for the following reasons: (a) This was a Special Bench specifically constituted to hear these matters on 15.06.2020 by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and the cause-list had been put up on the website of the High Court on Friday (12.06.2020) itself. Therefore, the learned Advocate-General had the week-end, i.e. Saturday (13.06.2020) and Sunday (14.06.2020) to prepare for these matters and make submissions. Therefore, the learned Advocate-General had the week-end, i.e. Saturday (13.06.2020) and Sunday (14.06.2020) to prepare for these matters and make submissions. (b) On the earlier occasion when these matters were listed on 13.05.2020 also the learned Advocate-General had stated that he was not ready to argue these matters as he had not read the papers and the matters were adjourned to 19.05.2020, but they were listed on 15.06.2020 more than one month later from 13.05.2020, but again he stated that he had not read the papers and wanted an adjournment. 60. These cases were then reserved for orders. Consideration of cases on merits: 61. For an Indian farmer like the petitioners, deprivation of agricultural land is traumatic, more so, when compensation as per the Law of the land is not paid at the earliest and proper Resettlement and Rehabilitation, as per law, is not done. 62. In Land Acquisition Officer vs. Mahboob, (2009) 14 SCC 54 , the travails of a poor farmer who loses his land for a project under the earlier Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were highlighted in the following manner by the Supreme Court: “14..........The Collector (LAO) is supposed to offer a fair compensation by taking all relevant circumstances relating to market value into account. 15. To safeguard the interests of the land-loser, the Act requires the Collector to make the award before the landowner is dispossessed. The intention is that the land-loser will immediately be able to draw compensation and purchase some other suitable land or make appropriate arrangements for his livelihood. But in practice the Collectors (LAOs) seldom make reasonable offers. They tend to err on the ‘safer’ side and invariably assess very low compensation. Such meagre awards force the land-loser to seek reference to the civil court for increase in compensation in regard to almost every award made by the LAO. In fact, many a time, even the Reference Courts are conservative in estimating the market value and it requires further appeals by the land-loser to the High Court and the Supreme Court to get just compensation for the land. 16. In fact, many a time, even the Reference Courts are conservative in estimating the market value and it requires further appeals by the land-loser to the High Court and the Supreme Court to get just compensation for the land. 16. We can take judicial notice of the fact that in several States the awards of the Reference Court or the judgments of the High Court and this Court increasing the compensation, are not complied with and the land-losers are again driven to courts to initiate time-consuming execution process (which also involves considerable expense by way of lawyer’s fee) to recover what is justly due. Resultantly the land-losers seldom get a substantial portion of proper compensation for their land in one lump sum immediately after the acquisition. As the landowner does not get the full compensation in one lump sum, he is not in a position to purchase an alternative land. When the land is acquired, he loses his means of livelihood, as he knows no other type of work. The result is, he is forced to spend the compensation received in piecemeal, on sustenance of his family when he fights the legal battles for increasing the compensation and for recovering the increases granted, by levying execution. The result is that whatever compensation is received piecemeal, gets spent for the sustenance of the family, and litigation cost during the course of prolonged litigation. At the end of the legal battle, he is hardly left with any money to purchase alternative land and by then the prices of land would have also increased manifold, making it impossible to purchase even a fraction of the land which he originally possessed. Illiteracy, ignorance and lack of counselling add to his woes and the piecemeal compensation is dissipated leaving him with neither land, nor money to buy alternative land, nor any means of livelihood. In short, he is stripped of his land and livelihood.” (Emphasis supplied) 63. This was reiterated and followed in Bondu Ramaswamy vs. Bangalore Development Authority, (2010) 7 SCC 1 29 , in the following terms: “150. Frequent complaints and grievances in regard to the following five areas, with reference to the prevailing system of acquisitions governed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, requires the urgent attention of the State Governments and Development Authorities: (i) absence of proper or adequate survey and planning before embarking upon acquisition. Frequent complaints and grievances in regard to the following five areas, with reference to the prevailing system of acquisitions governed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, requires the urgent attention of the State Governments and Development Authorities: (i) absence of proper or adequate survey and planning before embarking upon acquisition. (ii) indiscriminate use of emergency provisions in Section 17 of the LA Act. (iii) notification of areas far larger than what is actually required, for acquisition, and then making arbitrary deletions and withdrawals from the acquisitions. (iv) offer of very low amount as compensation by Land Acquisition Collectors, necessitating references to court in almost all cases. (v) inordinate delay in payment of compensation. (vi) absence of any rehabilitatory measures. While the plight of project oustees and land losers affected by acquisition for industries has been frequently highlighted in the media, there has been very little effort to draw attention to the plight of farmers affected by frequent acquisitions for urban development.” 64. In State of M.P. vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and Another, (2011) 7 SCC 639 , the Supreme Court explained the importance of Rehabilitation and Resettlement of land losers and other affected people when land is acquired by the State for public purpose. In State of M.P. vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and Another, (2011) 7 SCC 639 , the Supreme Court explained the importance of Rehabilitation and Resettlement of land losers and other affected people when land is acquired by the State for public purpose. It declared that for people whose lives and livelihoods are intrinsically connected to the land, the economic and cultural shift to a market economy can be traumatic; that though the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution in the case of land acquisition is unsustainable, still they are entitled to resettlement and rehabilitation as per the policy framed for the oustees of the project; mere payment of compensation would not be enough in case the oustee is unable to purchase the land with the compensation received by him; that in the process of development, the State cannot be permitted to displace tribal people, a vulnerable section of society, suffering from poverty and ignorance, without taking appropriate remedial measures of rehabilitation; that ‘rehabilitation’ is restoration of status of something loss, displaced or even otherwise a grant to secure a dignified mode of life to a person who has nothing to sustain himself and is different from ‘compensation’; that this concept brings within its fold the presence of elements of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; and those who have been rendered destitute, have to be assured a permanent source of basic livelihood to sustain themselves. It clarified that rehabilitation has to be done to the extent of displacement that it is compensatory in nature with a view to ensure that the oustee and his family are at least restored to the status that was existing on the date of commencement of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 65. Taking note of these decisions, the Parliament in 2013 enacted the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 66. In the ‘Statements of Objects and Reasons’ to Act 30 of 2013 it is stated: “..........In order to streamline the provisions of the Act causing less hardships to the owners of the land and other persons dependent upon such land, it is proposed repeal the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and to replace it with adequate provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement for the affected persons and their families.” 67. Interpreting the Act 30 of 2013, recently a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, MANU/SC/0300/2020, held that higher compensation to the land owner apart from rehabilitation is provided in the said Act and the Court has to give a full and meaningful effect to the Legislative intent. It declared: “93. Undoubtedly the Act of 2013 has provided safeguards, in the form of higher compensation and provisions for rehabilitation, which are necessary. In that light, the court has to interpret its provisions, to give full and meaningful effect to the legislative intent keeping in mind the language and tenor of the provisions, it is not for the court to legislate. The Court can only iron out creases to clear ambiguity. The intended benefit should not be taken away.” (Emphasis supplied) 68. In the light of the above legal position and Section 38 of Act 30 of 2013, referred to earlier by us, we shall now consider the rival contentions. 69. We would like to briefly mention about G.O.Ms. No. 123 dated 30.07.2015 under which the respondents claim to have taken the lands of the petitioners. 70. This G.O. was issued to expeditiously procure land for public projects after coming into operation of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No. 30 of 2013) from 01.01.2014 with the ostensible purpose to purchase lands from land owners who are expected to voluntarily agree to sell their lands, which would otherwise require to be acquired under Act 30 of 2013. G.O.Ms. No. 123: 71. This G.O. contemplates participation of land owners ‘willingly’ by selling their land and properties for a consideration on the basis of an agreement between them and the user department/undertaking/society/authority referred to as the ‘Procuring Agency’ and as approved by the District Level Land Procurement Committee (DLLPC). 72. It lays down the procedure to procure land from willing land owners. This G.O. contemplates participation of land owners ‘willingly’ by selling their land and properties for a consideration on the basis of an agreement between them and the user department/undertaking/society/authority referred to as the ‘Procuring Agency’ and as approved by the District Level Land Procurement Committee (DLLPC). 72. It lays down the procedure to procure land from willing land owners. There would be a process of ascertainment by the District Collector of willingness of land owners for sale of land on receipt of information of need for land for public development purpose from the Procuring Agency; a District Level Land Procurement Committee consisting of the District Collector of the concerned district (Chairman), the Joint Collector of the District (Member), Land Procurement Officer i.e. SDCs/RDO (Convenor), SE/EE of Roads and Buildings (Member), Representative of the Procuring Agency (Member) and District Registrar (Member) would be constituted; the Land Procurement Officer would place all connected records of enquiry, valuation statements, encumbrances of preceding 12 years and other relevant records before the said Committee; the Committee would negotiate with the persons interested or authorized by them; the proceedings or deliberations of the Committee would be recorded/minuted; an agreement in Form 1 would be prepared which would be attested by all the Members and after attesting Form 1, the Convenor would obtain affidavits from the concerned interested persons on the same day in Form II; once the agreement is reached, the Collector after executing agreements in Form I and Form II shall publish the details of the land owners including others and their respective shares in two newspapers inviting claims and objections within 15 days of publication of such notification; and after receipt of objections/claims, the Committee would examine and approve the consideration as detailed at para-2(viii) of the said G.O. for sale of land by individual land owners. 73. Para 2(viii) of the said G.O. states: “The consideration as agreed by the individual land owner/owners and Procuring Agency before the District Level Land Procurement Committee shall inter-alia, include the value of land and property, perceived loss of livelihood, equivalent costs required for rehabilitation and resettlement of willing land owners and others.” 74. Subsequently vide G.O.Ms. No. 214, Revenue (JA&LA) Department, dated 28.11.2015, the words “equivalent costs required for rehabilitation and resettlement of willing land owners and others” occurring in para-2(viii) of the G.O.Ms. No. 123 dated 30.07.2015 were deleted. 75. Subsequently vide G.O.Ms. No. 214, Revenue (JA&LA) Department, dated 28.11.2015, the words “equivalent costs required for rehabilitation and resettlement of willing land owners and others” occurring in para-2(viii) of the G.O.Ms. No. 123 dated 30.07.2015 were deleted. 75. Consequently the consideration which would be paid to a willing land owner for selling his land would include only value of the land and property, perceived loss of livelihood only and not equivalent costs required for rehabilitation and resettlement of willing land owners and others. 76. An affidavit is obtained from a land owner that he would have no right to further enhancement of consideration finalized by the Committee to any other forum [para-2(ix) of G.O.Ms. No. 123] and on signing of agreement, the District Collector would ensure registration of the conveyance deed/sale-deed in favour of the Procuring Agency duly making online payment of consideration [para-2(xi) of G.O.Ms. No. 123]. Telangana State Amendment Act 21 of 2017: 77. Thereafter Act 30 of 2013 was amended by the Telangana State Legislature by Act 21 of 2017 w.e.f. 01.01.2014 and Section 30A (providing for acquisition of land by State Government by entering into agreement with a willing land owner) and Section 31-A (which provided for lump-sum amount in lieu of rehabilitation and resettlement which shall not be abnormally at variance to the disadvantage of the disaffected families) were inserted into Act 30 of 2013 for the State of Telengana. 78. Under this amendment Act, G.O.Ms. No. 120, Revenue (JA&LA) Department dated 30.6.2017 was issued laying down the Telangana State Land Acquisition (Consent Award, Voluntary Acquisition and Lump-sum Payment towards Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Rules, 2017. 79. Proviso to Rule 15 stated as under: “Provided that the considerations ordered to land owners shall be higher than what could have been arrived under the provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 read with rules 26 to 28 of the Telangana State Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2014.” 80. Proviso to Rule 18 contains a similar provision while dealing with lump-sum payment towards R&R and states: “Provided that the lump-sum payment shall be higher than what could have been arrived under the provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 read with rules 26 to 28 of the Telangana State Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2014. So, the land owner has to be offered both compensation and R&R benefits more than what he would have got under Act 30 of 2013.” Regarding Compensation for lands of petitioners in W.P. No. 3420 of 2019: 81. It is not in dispute that the agricultural lands of the petitioners in W.P. No. 3420 of 2019 were allegedly taken in July, 2016 by the respondents for the Anantagirisagar Reservoir invoking G.O.Ms. No. 123 dated 30.7.2015 and such acquisition was allegedly a voluntary acquisition. 82. Petitioners in W.P. No. 3420 of 2019 specifically contended in para-4 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that an initial notification in file No. G3/1990/2016 dated 29.5.2016 was issued by the District Collector invoking the said G.O. for acquiring their agricultural land even before petitioners gave any consent. 83. This allegation is not denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf in W.P. No. 3420 of 2019 and W.P. No. 9146 of 2019. No material is produced by the respondents to show that petitioners voluntarily gave consent. 84. No material is placed along with the counter-affidavit to show how the compensation/price was arrived at or that petitioners voluntarily gave their willingness to sell their land to the State. No record pertaining to the Registration Department showing the market value of the lands as on the date of such agreements is produced, though the consideration is supposed to be fixed looking at the valuation statement produced by the Land Procurement Officer as per Clause (v) of G.O.Ms. No. 123 dated 30.07.2015. 85. No record pertaining to the Registration Department showing the market value of the lands as on the date of such agreements is produced, though the consideration is supposed to be fixed looking at the valuation statement produced by the Land Procurement Officer as per Clause (v) of G.O.Ms. No. 123 dated 30.07.2015. 85. Such record is critical to ascertain whether the petitioners agreed to part with their lands voluntarily and whether price was arrived at objectively keeping in view the market value/registration value of neighbouring lands, and as to what the petitioners were made to agree was more beneficial than what they would have got for the land under Act 30 of 2013 as required by proviso to Rule 15 mentioned above. 86. According to respondents, 148 out of 154 Project Displaced Families in Kochhaguttapalli village received benefits including land compensation, R&R benefits and house structure compensation; that all petitioners had agreed during several meetings for 2 BHK house constructed in R&R colony in Lingareddypalli Village of Siddipet Urban Mandal and 250 Sq. Yds. plots as per R&R entitlement under the Telangana State Amendment Act 21 of 2017 to the Act 30 of 2013. But not a single agreement allegedly signed by the petitioners is produced by the respondents. 87. In the Writ Petition affidavit, petitioners have alleged that they were threatened by the Revenue officials that if they did not agree to give up their lands, they would be acquired under Act 30 of 2013 and they would be paid only Rs. 2.00 lakhs per acre and that under coercion they had signed blank agreements in English language, which they did not understand. They contended that no amount was paid for structures or trees in the lands which were being taken from them. 88. The allegations made by the petitioners on the above aspects were not denied specifically in the counter-affidavit filed by the 6th respondent. 89. They contended that no amount was paid for structures or trees in the lands which were being taken from them. 88. The allegations made by the petitioners on the above aspects were not denied specifically in the counter-affidavit filed by the 6th respondent. 89. We may also mention that on 30.6.2016, another Division Bench of the Hyderabad High Court presided over by the then Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale and Justice P. Naveen Rao in W.P. No. 20740 of 2016, had passed final orders stating: “....under any circumstances, the respondents shall not compel the petitioners to enter into any agreement for acquisition of their lands for the said project (Kaleswaram project) and they shall follow the procedure for acquiring their lands as contemplated under the provisions of the Act.” 90. Admittedly, there is unequal bargaining power between the State actors such as the respondents and the petitioners, who are small farmers. 91. How the courts should deal with the unconscionable contracts between parties with unequal bargaining power has been eloquently answered by the Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC 156 saying that: “89..........Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to all persons equality before the law and the equal protection of laws.......This principle is that the courts will not enforce and will, when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power.......For instance, the above principle will apply where the inequality of bargaining power is the result of the great disparity in the economic strength of the contracting parties....It will also apply where a man has no choice or rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules may be.” (Emphasis supplied) 92. This principle was followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sant Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2013) SCC Online P&H 26646, where the said High Court set aside the agreements entered into by farmers with a private builder (who managed, without their knowledge, to get the proposal for acquisition of their land approved by the State, withdrawn, and got the lands released from such acquisition), so that he may buy the lands from them at a slightly better rate. It held: “To say that the landowners entered into varied contracts with Respondent 11 voluntarily, willingly or without undue pressure is too farcical to be believed. There is a natural and conventional bondage between the land and its tiller. A farmer seldom sells the land save for the compelling reasons. Agriculture being their only source of survival, the loss of land is a terrible nightmare for any farmer. The Land Acquisition Collectors never assess the compensation as per actual market value of the land and the only yardstick to be followed is the Collector’s rate fixed for the purpose of registration charges. The farmer cannot sell the land in open market as on issuance of Section 4 notification all sale transactions are invariably banned. These moments of fear and anxiety must have prompted Respondent 11 to indulge in the best bargain. For the farmers the offer was like “better you give the wool than the whole sheep.” There was no free trade for the farmers. Their choice was limited: to accept the State compensation at the Collector’s rate or a better offer given by State-sponsored private builder. There was inequality of bargaining power. The determination of land value was not at all in the control of farmers. They were groping in the dark. They had no clue that the land will be released. They accepted the unreasonable and unfair unilateral terms and lost their land. 71. The sale price of the land was determined by Respondent 11 and not by the market forces. Given a choice between retaining their land or selling it to the builder for the offered price, not a single farmer would have agreed to sell it. The circumstances forced the landowners to accede to the offer made by the 11th respondent. It is a proven case of unconscionable bargain exerted through undue influence and fraud, both. Given a choice between retaining their land or selling it to the builder for the offered price, not a single farmer would have agreed to sell it. The circumstances forced the landowners to accede to the offer made by the 11th respondent. It is a proven case of unconscionable bargain exerted through undue influence and fraud, both. The sample “agreements” on record truly reveal that illiterate/semi-literate farmers were asked to sign the documents on dotted lines forcing them to sell out most of their ancestral holdings. The en masse “agreements” conclusively belie the plea of need-based bona-fide sales.” (Emphasis supplied) It held that the State cannot force the landowners to surrender their title in favour of and at a price to be dictated by a private beneficiary. The notified public purpose was only a ruse to enable the private State sponsored builder to purchase the land at the lowest possible price for maximising the profiteering. 93. This decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was approved by the Supreme Court in Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd. vs. Sant Singh, (2016) 11 SCC 378 . The Supreme Court declared: “18. There could be no objection to acquisition of land for a compelling public purpose nor to regulated development of colonies, but entertaining an application for releasing of land in favour of the builder who comes into picture after acquisition notification and release of land to such builder tantamounts to acquisition for a private purpose. It amounts to transfer of resources of poor for the benefit of the rich. It amounts to permitting profiteering at the cost of livelihood and existence of a farmer. This is against the philosophy of the Constitution and in violation of guaranteed fundamental rights of equality and right to property and to life. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly also. 19. This apart, if the State is to be party to directly or indirectly select beneficiary of State largesse-which in present fact situation the State certainly is-objectivity and transparency are essential elements of exercise of public power which are required to be followed. It is patent that the State has enabled the builder to enter the field after initiation of acquisition to seek colonisation on the land covered by acquisition. It is patent that the State has enabled the builder to enter the field after initiation of acquisition to seek colonisation on the land covered by acquisition. In the absence of the State’s action, it was not possible for the builder to enter into the transactions in question which was followed by withdrawal from acquisition. But for assurance from some quarters, the builder could not have made investment nor landowners could have executed the transactions in question. Such fraudulent and clandestine exercise of power by the State is not permitted by law. This is in violation of public trust doctrine laid down inter-alia in Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2010) 7 SCC 1 , Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 1 , In Re: Natural Resources Allocation, (2012) 10 SCC 1 (Special Reference No. 1 of 2012) and Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 516 .” (Emphasis supplied) 94. Since objectivity and transparency are essential elements of exercise of public power which are required to be followed, and we find that in the instant cases there is absence of any evidence of (a) objective determination of the quantum of consideration and (b) transparency in the actions of respondents, and there is no material to show that what was offered to petitioners was more than what they would have got under Act 30 of 2013, we find that the exercise of public power by the respondents is in violation of the public trust doctrine and unconscionable. 95. The respondents in their counter affidavit merely state that petitioners cooperated and village elders and elected representatives convinced them to give up their lands and houses. We are not inclined to believe this plea of the respondents. 96. In our opinion, in the instant cases too, the petitioners were given no choice or rather no meaningful choice, in view of their unequal bargaining power with the respondents, but to give their assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form though it was unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable. 97. 96. In our opinion, in the instant cases too, the petitioners were given no choice or rather no meaningful choice, in view of their unequal bargaining power with the respondents, but to give their assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form though it was unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable. 97. We hold that the respondents have violated the order dated 30.6.2016 in W.P. No. 20740 of 2016 and forced the petitioners to give up their lands by signing agreements/sale-deeds under coercion and threat and so the said sale-deeds executed by petitioners selling their agricultural lands to the State are declared null and void, as they are unconscionable and we hold that they are unenforceable in view of Sec. 19 and 23 of the Contract Act, 1872. We also hold that the action of the respondents is violative of Art.14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 98. We also hold that there has been arbitrary fixation of price of the lands of the petitioners by the respondents. 99. Consequently, we hold that petitioners in W.P. No. 3420 and 9146 of 2019 are entitled to compensation for their agricultural lands as per Act 30 of 2013 which shall be determined and paid to them by the respondents within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order after giving notice to them and hearing them on the quantum of compensation. The date for determination of compensation shall be taken as 15.1.2019, the date when, according to the respondents, petitioners were dispossessed by the respondents. 100. We direct that amounts already paid to petitioners shall not be recovered by the respondents and shall be adjusted by the State towards the compensation found payable to the petitioners after such compensation for agricultural land is determined strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Act 30 of 2013. Re: Houses of Petitioners: 101. We had already noted that on 06.12.2019, the Green Bench of this Court passed a Common Order in W.P. Nos. 7549, 10393, 11714, 9146, 3420, 26421 and 13252 of 2019 stating that water be not released into the Ananthagirisagar Reservoir till the following week when the Bench proposed to hear it. 102. Re: Houses of Petitioners: 101. We had already noted that on 06.12.2019, the Green Bench of this Court passed a Common Order in W.P. Nos. 7549, 10393, 11714, 9146, 3420, 26421 and 13252 of 2019 stating that water be not released into the Ananthagirisagar Reservoir till the following week when the Bench proposed to hear it. 102. This interim order was subsequently extended on 20.12.2019 for three weeks, on 03.01.2020 up to 24.01.2020, on 29.01.2020 till 05.02.2020, on 05.02.2020 for two weeks, and on 19.02.2020 for two weeks in W.P. No. 3420 of 2019. 103. This interim order was subsequently extended on 20.12.2019 for three weeks, on 03.01.2020 up to 24.01.2020, on 29.01.2020 till 05.02.2020, on 05.02.2020 for two weeks, on 19.02.2020 for two weeks, on 26.02.2020 for two weeks, and on 11.03.2020 for four weeks in W.P. No. 9146 of 2019. 104. Thereafter, as per orders dated 27.03.2020 in W.P. (Urgent) 1 of 2020 of a Full Bench of this Court presided over by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, in the circumstances prevalent because of the Corona Virus Pandemic, all interim orders were extended up to 07.06.2020. 105. However notwithstanding the said interim orders dated 6.12.2019, water was admittedly released into the Anantgirisagar reservoir on 18.4.2020 (according to counter filed by the respondents in W.P. No. 3420 and 9146 of 2019). 106. According to the petitioners, on the midnight of 19.4.2020, they were all forcibly evicted from their houses by the respondents with the help of about 500 police men, the petitioners were not even allowed to take their belongings from their houses, and their houses were demolished. 107. The very act of release of water into the Anantagiri sagar reservoir by the respondents on 18.4.2020, is a willful disobedience of the order dated 6.12.2019 granted in W.P. No. 9146 of 2019, which continued to subsist in the said W.P. and in W.P. No. 3420 of 2019 by virtue of later extensions, and is an act amounting to Contempt of Court rendering the respondents punishable under Art.215 of the Constitution of India and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 108. 108. The respondents cannot place any reliance on the order dated 1.5.2020 in W.P. No. 35059 of 2017, 7549, 10393 and 11714 of 2019 because the petitioners herein were not parties therein and the said order passed on 1.5.2020 could not be pleaded as a justification for release of water into the Anatagirisagar reservoir on 19.4.2020 more than 10 days prior thereto. 109. We are of the opinion that the respondents had no respect or the interim orders passed by this Court in the instant cases which were subsisting as on 19.4.2020. 110. Though a notification dated 20.12.2017 had been issued under Sec. 11 of the Act 30 of 2013 by publication in Eenadu newspaper on 28.12.2017, no declaration under Sec. 19 of the Act had been issued within the period of 12 months from the date of Sec. 11(1) notification, as provided under Sec. 19(7) of the Act. 111. The extension order dated 28.2.2019 uploaded on the web site of the District Collector cannot be taken as a valid exercise of the power to extend the time under second proviso to Sec. 19(7) of the Act because such extension can only be done within the 12 months period from 28.12.2017 i.e. before 27.12.2018 and thereafter. 112. Even the respondents accept that the Sec. 11 (1) notification issued to acquire the houses of the petitioners has lapsed in para-4 of the counter affidavit by saying “It is submitted that in W.P. No. 3420 and 9146 of 2019, the Hon’ble High court has set aside the Sec. 11 (1) notification.” 113. No attempt has been made in the counter affidavit to justify the dispossession of the petitioners from their houses, without there being a valid acquisition process, to acquire them. 114. The plea of the petitioners in the reply affidavit filed by them about the presence of a large police force on 18.4.2020 and 19.4.2020 has not been denied by the respondents by filing any additional counter affidavit thereto. 115. The plea of the respondents that petitioners voluntarily cooperated and vacated their houses is vehemently denied by the respondents in the rejoinder filed by them as well in the memo filed on 20.5.2020 by them. 116. 115. The plea of the respondents that petitioners voluntarily cooperated and vacated their houses is vehemently denied by the respondents in the rejoinder filed by them as well in the memo filed on 20.5.2020 by them. 116. We find it highly improbable that petitioners, having come to this Court and having secured interim orders on 29.4.2019 in I.A. No. 1 of 2019 in W.P. No. 9146 2019 and later from the Green Bench on 6.12.2019, would meekly and without protest, vacate their houses, that too in the middle of the night on 19.4.2020. 117. We accept the plea of the petitioners that they were dispossessed from their houses, structures and trees on 19.4.2020 by coercion by use of police force in blatant violation of interim orders on 29.4.2019 in I.A. No. 1 of 2019 in W.P. No. 9146 2019 and later from the Green Bench on 6.12.2019 and the action of the respondents is clearly violative of Art.14, 300-A and Sec. 38 of the Act 30 of 2013. 118. At pg.71 of the papers filed by the petitioners along with the reply affidavit, they have filed the Cheque dishonour Memo dated 28.4.2020 issued by the State Bank of India of the chqeue no. 103183 dated 25.4.2020 issued for Rs. 7,50,000/- to Gaddam Rajavva, petitioner no. 1 in W.P. No. 9146 of 2019, stating that “payment stopped by Drawer.” According to petitioners cheques issued to several other petitioners also were dishonoured. There is no denial of this allegation by the respondents. So we believe the said allegation. 119. We are appalled by this conduct of the respondents. 120. We therefore direct the respondents to determine and pay compensation to the petitioners as on 19.4.2020 for the deprivation of houses of the petitioners in W.P. No. 3420 and 9146 of 2019 within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order after giving notice to them and hearing them on the quantum of compensation. 121. The District Collector, Siddipet District shall ensure that the cheques already issued by him to the petitioners are forthwith honoured by the respective bankers for the State of Telangana and the petitioners receive the said amounts. 122. 121. The District Collector, Siddipet District shall ensure that the cheques already issued by him to the petitioners are forthwith honoured by the respective bankers for the State of Telangana and the petitioners receive the said amounts. 122. These amounts, after the respective petitioners receive them, shall be adjusted, towards the compensation for houses, structures and trees which shall be determined afresh under the Act 30 of 2013 and which is to be paid to the petitioners pursuant to the orders in the instant Writ Petitions within three (03) months from to-day. Re: Resettlement and Rehabilitation: 123. The Act 30 of 2013 provides for Resettlement and Rehabilitation in Chapter V to families affected by deprivation of property by the State as per Second Schedule. 124. Sec. 31-A, as introduced by Act 21 of 2017 (the Telangana state Amendment) has been given retrospective effect w.e.f.1.1.2014 by Sec. 1(2) of Act 21 of 2017. 125. Sec. 31-A states: “31A. Payment of Lump sum amount by State Government - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, whenever the land is to be acquired for any projects as notified in Section 10A, it shall be competent for the State Government to pay such lump sum amount as may be prescribed in the rules in lieu of Rehabilitation and Resettlement: Provided that the payment of such lump-sum amount in lieu of Rehabilitation and Resettlement as may be prescribed, shall not be abnormally at variance to the disadvantage of the affected families.” [Vide Telangana Amendment Act 21 of 2017, w.r.e.f. 1.1.2014] 126. Under this provision, the petitioners in both Writ Petitions 3420 and 9146 of 2019, are entitled to R&R benefits not only for loss of agricultural lands in July,2016 but also for loss of their house properties in April,2020 separately i.e. twice, in the event they lost both. But if they have lost only one of them i.e. agricultural lands or houses, they would get such benefits only once. 127. This would be in addition to the compensation for the agricultural lands/houses or both as per Act 30 of 2013. 128. The respondents shall determine and pay the said benefits towards R&R as per Sec 31/31A of the Act to the petitioners in W.P. No. 3420 and 9146 of 2019 within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. W.P. No. 25664 of 2019: 129. 128. The respondents shall determine and pay the said benefits towards R&R as per Sec 31/31A of the Act to the petitioners in W.P. No. 3420 and 9146 of 2019 within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. W.P. No. 25664 of 2019: 129. The petitioners in this Writ Petitioners are adult unmarried members of project affected families. They seek R&R benefits on par with adult married members of project affected families. 130. Sec. 2 (m) of Act 30 of 2013 states: “2(m) ‘family’ includes a person, his or her spouse, minor children, minor brothers and minor sisters dependent on him: Provided that widows, divorcees and women deserted by families shall be considered separate families: Explanation - An adult of either gender with or without spouse or children or dependents shall be considered as a separately family for the purposes of this Act.” (Emphasis supplied) 131. Thus as per the Explanation to Sec. 2(m), even if an adult member of a family is unmarried, he is to be treated fictionally as a “separate family” for the purposes of the Act 30 of 2013. 132. Section 31(1) of Act 30 of 2013 states that the Collector shall pass Rehabilitation and Resettlement Awards for each affected “family” in terms of entitlements provided in the Second Schedule. 133. Sub-Section (2) of Section 31 states that such Award shall include the following: “31. (1).......... (2).............. (a) rehabilitation and resettlement amount payable to the family. (b) bank account number of the person to which the rehabilitation and resettlement award amount is to be transferred. (c) particulars of house site and house to be allotted, in case of displaced families. (d) particulars of land allotted to the displaced families. (e) particulars of one time subsistence allowance and transportation allowance in case of displaced families. (f) particulars of payment for cattle shed and petty shops. (g) particulars of one-time amount to artisans and small traders. (h) details of mandatory employment to be provided to the members of the affected families. (i) particulars of any fishing rights that may be involved. (j) particulars of annuity and other entitlements to be provided. (k) particulars of special provisions for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes to be provided......” (Emphasis supplied) 134. Thus under Sec. 31, each “family” which is project affected is entitled to R&R amounts as specified under the Act. 135. (i) particulars of any fishing rights that may be involved. (j) particulars of annuity and other entitlements to be provided. (k) particulars of special provisions for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes to be provided......” (Emphasis supplied) 134. Thus under Sec. 31, each “family” which is project affected is entitled to R&R amounts as specified under the Act. 135. We have already referred to Sec. 31A introduced by the Telangana State Amendment Act 21 of 2017 w.e.f. 1.1.2014. 136. Counsel for the petitioners contends that having regard to the explanation to Sec. 2 (m), petitioners shall also be treated as a separate family, though unmarried, for the purposes of the Act. 137. According to petitioners, they had been given only Rs. 5.00 lakhs and a plot of 250 sq. yds. while married members of project affected families have been given Rs. 7.50 lakhs and a double bed room house on a 250 sq. yds. plot and that they have been discriminated against. 138. According to them, the respondents had declared a package of Rs. 5 lakhs and a plot of 250 sq. yards to be given as R&R package to adult unmarried members, like the petitioners, but not the fulfledged R&R package to be given to a family under the Act. 139. Counsel for the petitioners referred to G.O.Rt. No. 282 Irrigation and CAD (LA-R&R/A2) Department dated 11.07.2019, which directs that the Government would pay Rs. 7,50,000/- per family and Rs. 5,00,000/- only to unmarried youth, who have crossed 18 years of age, along with either the allotment of open plot or 250 sq. yards or construction of 2BHK house or payment of Rs. 5.04 lakh amount in lieu of 2BHK house in respect of Kochaguttapally habitation and contended that discrimination is being shown to petitioners, who are unmarried adult members of project affected families. 140. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in this W.P. denying the discrimination alleged by the petitioners. 141. 5.04 lakh amount in lieu of 2BHK house in respect of Kochaguttapally habitation and contended that discrimination is being shown to petitioners, who are unmarried adult members of project affected families. 140. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in this W.P. denying the discrimination alleged by the petitioners. 141. We are of the opinion that as a matter of law, in view of Explanation to Sec. 2 (m) of the Act 30 of 2013, married and unmarried members of families of project affected families have to be treated on par and as a “separate family”, and there cannot be any discrimination shown to any adult unmarried member of such family on the ground that he/she is not married in the matter of payment of R&R entitlements under Sec. 31/31A of the Act. So whatever benefits are promised to adult married members, same benefits should be given to unmarried adult members too. 142. We accordingly declare that petitioners in W.P. No. 25664 of 2019, who are unmarried adult members of project affected families, are entitled to same R&R benefits as were paid by the respondents to adult married members of project affected families as per Sec. 31/31 A of the Act 30 of 2013 and the said R&R benefits, identical with those granted given to adult married members of project affected families, shall be given to the petitioners within 3 months. The amounts already paid to them shall be taken into account while giving the monetary component of the same as per Sec. 31 A of the Act 30 of 2013 and rules/Government Orders made thereunder. CONCLUSION: 143. Accordingly: (a) The W.P. Nos. 3420 of 2019, W.P. 9146 of 2019 and W.P. No. 25664 of 2019 are allowed. (b) It is declared that the respondents have violated the order dated 30.6.2016 in W.P. No. 20740 of 2016 and forced the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 3420 of 2019 and W.P. 9146 of 2019 to give up their agriculture lands by signing agreements/sale-deeds in July, 2016 under coercion and threat; the said sale-deeds executed by petitioners selling their agricultural lands to the State are declared null and void, as they are unconscionable and are declared as unenforceable in view of Sec. 19 and 23 of the Contract Act, 1872. It is also declared that the said action of the respondents is violative of Art. 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and provisions of Act 30 of 2013 and Act 21 of 2017. (c) It is declared that there has been arbitrary fixation of price of the agricultural lands of the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 3420 of 2019 and W.P. 9146 of 2019 by the respondents. (d) Consequently, we direct the respondents to pay petitioners in W.P. No. 3420 and 9146 of 2019 compensation for deprivation by the State of their agricultural lands as per Act 30 of 2013 which shall be determined and paid to them by the respondents within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order after giving notice to them and hearing them on the quantum of compensation. The date for determination of compensation shall be taken as 15.1.2019, the date when, according to the respondents, petitioners were dispossessed by the respondents. (e) We direct that amounts already paid to petitioners in W.P. No. 3420 and 9146 of 2019 shall not be recovered by the respondents and shall be adjusted by the State towards the compensation found payable to them after such compensation for petitioners’ agricultural lands is determined in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Act 30 of 2013 as mentioned in clause (d) above. (f) Further we direct the respondents to determine and pay compensation to the petitioners in W.P. No. 3420 and 9146 of 2019 as on 19.4.2020 as per Act 30 of 2013 for the deprivation of their houses, structures and trees within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order after giving notice to them and hearing them on the quantum of compensation. (g) The District Collector, Siddipet District shall ensure that the cheques already issued by him to the petitioners in W.P. No. 3420 and 9146 of 2019 as compensation for the deprivation of their houses are forthwith honoured by the respective Bankers for the State of Telangana and ensure that the petitioners receive the said amounts. (h) These amounts, after the respective petitioners in W.P. No. 3420 and 9146 of 2019 receive them, shall be adjusted, towards the compensation for houses, structures and trees which shall be determined afresh as directed under clause (f) above. (i) We declare that the petitioners in both W.P. Nos. (h) These amounts, after the respective petitioners in W.P. No. 3420 and 9146 of 2019 receive them, shall be adjusted, towards the compensation for houses, structures and trees which shall be determined afresh as directed under clause (f) above. (i) We declare that the petitioners in both W.P. Nos. 3420 and 9146 of 2019, are entitled to R&R benefits not only for loss of agricultural lands in July,2016 but also for loss of their house properties in April, 2020 separately i.e. twice, in the event they lost both agricultural lands and houses. But if they have lost only one of them i.e. agricultural lands or houses, they would get such benefits only once. This would be in addition to the compensation for the agricultural lands/houses or both payable to these petitioners as per Act 30 of 2013; and we direct the respondents to determine and pay the said benefits towards R&R as per Sec 31/31A of the Act to the petitioners in W.P. No. 3420 and 9146 of 2019 within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (j) As regards the petitioners in W.P. No. 25664 of 2019, it is declared that married and unmarried members of project affected families have to be treated on par, and as a “separate family”; and there cannot be any discrimination shown to any adult unmarried member of such family like the petitioners in W.P. No. 25664 of 2019 on the ground that he/she is not married, in the matter of payment of R &R benefits under Sec. 31/31-A of the Act. (k) We direct the respondents to pay/grant the petitioners in W.P. No. 25664 of 2019 R &R benefits under Sec. 31/31A of the Act whatever R&R benefits were given to married members of project affected families within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The amounts already paid to them shall be taken into account while giving the monetary component of the same as per Sec. 31A of the Act 30 of 2013 and rules/Government Orders made thereunder. 144. The amounts already paid to them shall be taken into account while giving the monetary component of the same as per Sec. 31A of the Act 30 of 2013 and rules/Government Orders made thereunder. 144. Having regard to the finding given by us regarding willful disobedience by respondents of the interim orders dated 29.4.2019 in I.A. No. 1 of 2019 in W.P. No. 9146 of 2019 and the orders dated 26.12.2019 of the Green Bench of this High Court in W.P. No. 3420 of 2019 and W.P. No. 9146 of 2019, which are still subsisting, by forceful dispossession of the petitioners from their houses in the said W.P. Nos. without paying lawful compensation under Act 30 of 2013 and R&R benefits in violation of Sec. 38 of Act 30 of 2013, we further direct as under: (a) The State of Telangana rep. by its Chief Secretary or other competent authority shall record an adverse entry in the Annual Confidential reports of (i) Sri. P. Venkatrama Reddy, IAS, the District Collector, Siddipet. (ii) K.Anantha Reddy S/o K. Anji Reddy, Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet who was also Special Deputy Collector (LA), Unit-I, Kaleswaram Project. (iii) Sri. Srinivas rao, MRO, Chinnakodur, Sri. Parameswar, MRO who also worked at Chinnakodur. (iv) Mr. Joel Davis, Commissioner of Police, Siddipet, who had taken an active part to forcibly evict the petitioners from their houses on 19.4.2020. (b) The National Commission for Scheduled Castes , New Delhi shall also enquire into the actions of these persons and any others since it is contended that the actions of these persons have resulted in the violation of provisions of the SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in respect of petitioners Thaduri Narsaiah, Thaduri Laxmi, Kommagalla Narsavva, Kommagalla Lakshmi, Thaduri Lachavva, Lakke Narsaiah, Elkathurthi Lakshman, Elkathurthi Narsavva, Thaduri Nagaraju, Thaduri Mallavva and Thaduri Eshwar, (Petitioner Nos. 5, 11 to 14, 25, 26 and 29 in W.P. No. 3420 of 2019 and Petitioners No. 9 to 11 in W.P. No. 9146 of 2019) who belong to the Scheduled Caste community and that their eviction in the above manner would attract the provisions of the SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and it shall within 4 months recommend appropriate action to the competent authority against Sri. P.Venkatrama Reddy, IAS, the District Collector, Siddipet. P.Venkatrama Reddy, IAS, the District Collector, Siddipet. (ii) K. Anantha Reddy S/o K. Anji Reddy, Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet who was also Special Deputy Collector (LA), Unit-I, Kaleswaram Project. (iii) Sri. Srinivas rao, MRO, Chinnakodur, Sri Parameswar, MRO who also worked at Chinnakodur. (iv) Mr. Joel Davis, Commissioner of Police, Siddipet, if it comes to a conclusion that there is a violation of provisions of the said Act by these persons or any other persons. (c) The State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation and CAD Department shall also pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- to each petitioner in all these three Writ Petitions. ORDER : A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J. 1. Considering the grave possibility of spreading of COVID-19, the Government of India has issued Order No. 40-3/2020-DM-1(A) on 24.03.2020 whereunder strong measures have been enforced to prevent the spread of COVID-19. A nationwide lockdown has been declared for a period of 21 days with effect from 25.03.2020. 2. In view of the lockdown in the State of Telangana and the extremely limited functioning of courts, routine matters have been adjourned en bloc to particular dates in the month of April. Thus advocates and litigants have not been in a position to appear in the said matters, including those where stays have been granted by this Court or by the Courts subordinate to this Court, on or before 20.03.2020. As a result, interim orders operating in favour of parties have expired, or will expire on or after 20.03.2020. 3. Taking suo-moto cognizance of the aforesaid extraordinary circumstances, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, it is hereby ordered that in all matters pending before this court and courts subordinate to this court, wherein such interim orders issued were subsisting as on 20.03.2020 and expired or will expire thereafter, the same shall stand automatically extended till 7.6.2020 or until further Supreme Court of India in any particular matter, during the intervening period. 4. Needless to clarify that in case, the aforesaid extension of interim order causes any hardship of an extreme nature to a party to such proceeding, they would be at liberty to seek appropriate relief, as may be advised. 5. It has also come to the notice of this Court that after 15.2.2020, the Executing Courts have passed directions to the Bailiffs for executing the decrees and dispossessing the judgment debtors. 5. It has also come to the notice of this Court that after 15.2.2020, the Executing Courts have passed directions to the Bailiffs for executing the decrees and dispossessing the judgment debtors. The Bailiffs are continuing to implement the said orders. However, the judgment debtors, presently, do not have any means of challenging the said orders. Therefore, their access to justice is being denied. Hence, it is directed that any such order passed by the Executing Court shall be kept in abeyance and shall not be executed till further orders. 6. This order be uploaded on the website of this Court and be conveyed to the learned Advocate General, Additional Advocate General, Additional Solicitor General of India, Assistant Solicitor General of India, Public Prosecutor of the High Court, all the Government Pleaders and Standing Counsel, High Court Advocates Association, all the other Bar Associations of the District in the State of Telangana, as well as to all District Courts subordinate to this court.