ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Ch. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 2. All the petitioners herein are the widows or widowers and single persons being adult members of the displaced family within the meaning of Clause (k) of Section 3 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act 2013’) and they also come within the meaning of affected family under Clause (c) of Section 3 of the Act, 2013. 3. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 14399 of 2019 are all the persons belonging to Vemulaghat Village, Thoguta Mandal, Siddipet District, whereas, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 6268 of 2021 are all the persons belonging to Yetigadda Kistapur Village, Thoguta Mandal, Siddipet District. 4. The entire land and structures situated in both the villages to an extent of Acs. 2500.00 gts. were acquired for the purpose of construction of ‘Komuravelli Mallanna Sagar Reservoir’ during the years 2016-2019. The acquisition of the property had taken place under the provisions of the Act, 2013 and compensation was also duly paid to the respective owners of the properties. 5. The issue, that arise for consideration in these two (02) Writ Petitions, is whether the petitioners herein, who are the single adult members of the affected and displaced family, are entitled for extension of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement (for short ‘R&R’) benefits by treating them as a separate family or not? The house properties of some of the petitioners were also acquired and they were paid compensation for the same and there is no dispute about the same. 6. Petitioner Nos. 6 and 47 in Writ Petition No. 14399 of 2019 and petitioner No. 7 in Writ Petition No. 6268 of 2021 were extended the R&R entitlements on the ground that they does not have son/daughter. The other petitioners were denied the R&R entitlements on the ground that their family members were extended the said benefit in terms of the R&R scheme introduced by the State under G.O.Ms. No. 120, Revenue (JA&LA) Department, dated 30.06.2017. 7. Aggrieved by such action of the respondents in not extending the R&R benefits to the petitioners by treating them as a separate family, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petitions. 8. No. 120, Revenue (JA&LA) Department, dated 30.06.2017. 7. Aggrieved by such action of the respondents in not extending the R&R benefits to the petitioners by treating them as a separate family, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petitions. 8. Sri Ch. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that all the petitioners herein being the single elder member coming within the meaning of widows, divorcees and women deserted by families, are entitled to be treated as a separate family in terms of the proviso of Clause (m) of Section 3 of the Act, 2013, read with explanation to Clause (m) of Section 3 of the Act, 2013. The benefit that is being claimed by the petitioners herein is independent of the R&R benefits that were extended to their sons/daughters or other family members. 9. Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, contended that in terms of Section 107 of the Act, 2013, the State Legislature is competent to enact more beneficial laws to the affected families and in exercise of the said power, the State Government had issued G.O.Ms. No. 120, dated 30.06.2017, providing more beneficial R&R benefits than the benefits that were contemplated under the provisions of the Act, 2013 and all the family members, including the petitioners herein, have consented for extending the R&R benefits in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 120 and accordingly, the R&R benefits were extended to the family members of the petitioners herein in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 120. It is also contended that all the family members of the petitioners, having opted to avail the benefits under G.O.Ms. No. 120, which is more beneficial than the benefits provided under the Act, 2013, have now come forward claiming for extending the R&R benefits by falling back on the provisions of the Act, 2013, especially under Clause (m) of Section 3 of the Act, 2013, though they are not entitled to make such a claim. 10. It is also contended that the petitioners herein along with their family members consented for payment of R&R benefits in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 120, dated 30.06.2017. 11. There is no dispute that the benefits that were sought to be extended under G.O.Ms. No. 120 are more beneficial than the benefits provided under the Act, 2013. 10. It is also contended that the petitioners herein along with their family members consented for payment of R&R benefits in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 120, dated 30.06.2017. 11. There is no dispute that the benefits that were sought to be extended under G.O.Ms. No. 120 are more beneficial than the benefits provided under the Act, 2013. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners herein have consented for payment of the R&R benefits in favour of their family members under G.O.Ms. No. 120 by giving up their right and entitlement to claim such benefits for themselves or not. 12. Considering the rival submissions and after hearing the learned counsel on either side at length, this Court passed a docket order, dated 30.08.2023, which reads as under: “This is a case where all the petitioners in the three writ petitions are either widow or widower claiming to be treated as separate family by placing reliance on proviso and explanation to Section 3 (m) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act 2013’). Sri A. Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General, contended that all the petitioners have opted and consented for payment of compensation and R&R benefits in terms of G.O.Ms. 120, Revenue (JA&LA) Department, dated 30.06.2017, along with their other family members and accordingly, compensation and other benefits were paid to other family members of the petitioners. Thus, it is contended that having received compensation and R&R benefits in terms of the said G.O.Ms. No. 120, dated 30.06.2017, the petitioners have approached this Court as an afterthought and claiming to be treated as separate family under Section 3 (m) of the Act 2013. It is the specific contention of learned Special Government Pleader that the petitioners are either entitled for benefits under the Act 2013 or under G.O Ms. No. 120, dated 30.06.2017, which parallelly operating by virtue of Section 103 of Act 2017. However, there is no material placed before this Court as on date or any pleading to show that the petitioners herein have consented for payment of benefits under G.O.Ms. No. 120, dated 30.06.2017 in favour of one of their family members. This is the only crucial issue that is required to be verified by this Court. However, there is no material placed before this Court as on date or any pleading to show that the petitioners herein have consented for payment of benefits under G.O.Ms. No. 120, dated 30.06.2017 in favour of one of their family members. This is the only crucial issue that is required to be verified by this Court. If the petitioners given consent for payment of benefits under G.O.Ms. No. 120, dated 30.06.2017 in favour of their other family members and such payments were in fact received, the petitioners may not be entitled for R&R benefits by treating them as separate family under Section 3 (m) of the Act, 2013. If there is no consent given by the petitioners, as contended by learned Special Government Pleader, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their right to claim benefit of Section 3 (m) of the Act, 2013 or the benefits, for which they may be entitled by treating them as separate family under G.O.Ms. No. 120, dated 30.06.2017. Learned Special Government Pleader seeks time till 11.09.2023 for producing the consent forms said to have been given by the petitioners. Hence, post the matters on 11.09.2023 for filing an affidavit by a responsible Officer, clarifying the factual aspects in this regard.” 13. Pursuant to the above order, Sri A. Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader, placed before this Court the entire record pertaining to petitioner No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 14399 of 2019 in support of his contention that all the family members of the petitioners herein have consented for payment of R&R benefits in favour of their family members. But, a perusal of the said record does not show that the petitioners herein have consented for such payment of R&R benefits in favour of their family members, while giving up their right. The consent alleged to have been given by the family members of the petitioners and the other family members in respect of the other petitioners, also stated to be in the same lines. 14. Thus, it is clear that there is no consent or willingness expressed by the petitioners for payment of R&R benefits in favour of their family members in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 120, while giving up their independent claim. Once it is clear that the petitioners have not given up their claim or agreed to be governed by the scheme provided under G.O.Ms. No. 120, while giving up their independent claim. Once it is clear that the petitioners have not given up their claim or agreed to be governed by the scheme provided under G.O.Ms. No. 120, the petitioners cannot be denied of their right to claim for payment of R&R benefits, if they are otherwise entitled under the provisions of the Act, 2013. Clause (m) of Section 3 of the Act, 2013, reads as under: “(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 separate family for the purposes of this Act.” 15. In terms of proviso of Clause (m) of Section 3 of the Act, 2013, the Widows, Divorcees and Women deserted by families shall be considered as separate families. The family includes a person, his or her spouse, minor children, minor brothers and minor sisters dependent on that person. The explanation to the said proviso mandates that an adult of either gender, with or without spouse or children or dependents, shall be considered as a separate family for the purposes of the Act, 2013. 16. Thus, from the explanation to Clause (m) of Section 3 of the Act, 2013, it is clear that an adult of either gender shall be considered as a separate family, irrespective of the fact, whether such adult has spouse or no spouse, has any children or dependents or not. All the petitioners herein are all the persons satisfying the requirement of an adult in terms of Clause (m) of Section 3 of the Act, 2013. Therefore they are liable to be treated as a separate family for the purposes of the Act, 2013. There is no serious dispute about all the petitioners being adult and also about the petitioners falling within the meaning of separate family for the purpose of extending the benefits under the Act, 2013. 17. As the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners have consented for extending the R&R benefits in favour of their family members in terms of G.O.Ms. 17. As the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners have consented for extending the R&R benefits in favour of their family members in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 120 is already rejected by this Court, the entitlement of the petitioners for extending the R&R benefits by treating them as a separate family cannot be disputed. Thus, all the petitioners herein are bound to be declared as entitled for extending the R&R benefits in terms of the Act, 2013, by treating them as separate family and the action of the respondents in not extending the R&R benefits to the petitioners is declared as illegal. 18. In the light of the above, both the Writ Petitions are allowed declaring that the petitioners herein are entitled to be treated as a separate family within the meaning of proviso of Clause (m) of Section 3 of the Act, 2013, read with explanation to Clause (m) of Section 3 of the Act, 2013 and also for extending the R&R benefits under the provisions of the Act, 2013. The respondents are further directed to extend the R&R benefits by virtue of their displacement pursuant to the acquisition proceedings undertaken by the respondents under the provisions of the Act, 2013 or under G.O.Ms. No. 120, dated 30.06.2017 or any other scheme as may be applicable to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if such benefits were not already extended subject to the petitioners satisfying their eligibility being the adult member of an affected family. 19. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. No costs.