1. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

               “……to issue an appropriate order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents in not considering and disposing of the Petitioner’s representation dated 24.11.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to revise the location of the proposed storage tank from its present position in the middle of the Petitioner’s land to the beginning of the land where the inlet pipelines enter, in Sy.No.148, admeasuring Ac.0-28 guntas, situated at Chilkamarri Village, Gudipally Mandal (previously Peddadiserla Pally Mandal), Nalgonda District, and further realign the inlet and outlet pipelines in such a manner that the Petitioner’s remaining extent of Ac.11.01 guntas is not rendered unfit for meaningful agricultural or developmental use, and to furnish the Detailed Project Report (DPR) and revised layout reflecting such relocation and realignment, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. ….”

2. Heard Mr.Karam Chandu Komireddy, learned counsel for the petitioner who appeared virtually; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for respondent No.4 and perused the material on record.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.11.29 guntas in Sy.No.148/A/1 situated at Chilkamarri Village, Gudipally Mandal, Nalgonda District. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, out of the said extent, an extent of Ac.0-28 guntas is sought to be acquired for construction of a storage tank and laying of pipelines under the Akkampally Balancing Reservoir Lift Irrigation Scheme. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has no objection for acquisition of the said land, the respondents are proposing to locate the storage tank and pipelines in the middle of the petitioner’s land, thereby rendering the remaining extent unusable for agricultural and other developmental purposes. It is submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.16998 of 2025 challenging the award proceedings dated 06.01.2025. This Court by order dated 20.06.2025 disposed of the said writ petition with the following directions:

               i. That if the petitioner is aggrieved with the Detailed Project Report (DPR) or designs for the construction of storage tanks, the petitioner is permitted to make appropriate representation to the respondents, which the respondents shall examine strictly in accordance with law.

               ii. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the compensation awarded, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the award proceedings vide Lr.No.F/59/2023 dated 06.01.2026 before the appropriate forum or make a representation before the competent authority for allotment of alternative land in lieu of compensation.

4. It is submitted that pursuant to the said order of this Court dated 06.01.2026, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 24.11.2025 (Ex.B1) requesting the authorities to relocate and realign the proposed storage tank and pipelines towards the boundary of the petitioner’s land. However, the respondents have not considered the same and have proceeded with the construction activity on the said land of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Under Article 226 of Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as an appellate authority over technical project designs. The choice of alignment for a storage tank and pipelines involves topographical and engineering considerations. As explicitly held by this Court in its earlier order dated 20.06.2025 :

               “5. This Court is not technically expertised to decide the proposals/designs prepared for construction of the storage tanks……”

6. The petitioner’s request to relocate the storage tank to the beginning of the land where the inlet pipes enter is a substantive modification of the Detailed Project Report. Judicial interference with such technical decisions is warranted only if mala fide, arbitrariness or perversity is alleged and demonstrated. There is no such material placed on record in the present writ petition. The petitioner herself admits that the tank is a part of public irrigation project and that the petitioner has no objection to the acquisition per se.

7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation has placed on record the written submissions issued by Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division No.4, Angadipet Village, P.A.Pally Mandal, Nalgonda District which are extracted hereunder:

               It is submitted that requisition proposals were received from the Executive Engineer. DLIS Division No.4, Angadipet, P.A. Pally Mandal, Nalgonda District, for acquisition of lands to an extent of Ac.2.10 guntas in Sy.Nos.128, 132, 133, 138, 140, 148 and 149 situated at Chilkamarry Village of Gudipally Mandal for execution of Akkampally Balancing Reservoir Lift Irrigation Scheme, which is a public irrigation scheme intended for the benefit of ayacut farmers.

               The Petitioner's land admeasuring Ac.0.28 guntas in Sy.No.148 of Chilkamarry Village was also covered under the acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Petitioner is the pattadar and title holder of the subject land and was issued Pattadar Passbook No.T28210020354.

               Preliminary Notification under Section 11 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 was submitted vide Lr.No.F/59/2023 dated 14.07.2023 and approved by the District Collector, Nalgonda vide Proc No.G1/4891/2022 dated 24.07.2023. The said notification was published in Telangana Extraordinary District Gazette No.79/2023 dated 25.07.2023. The notification was also published in the following newspapers as required under law:

               1. Capital Information English Daily dated 10.08.2023; and

               2. Mana Telangana Telugu Daily dated 10.08.2023.

               The Petitioner's land was specifically covered under the said notification. However, no objections were received from the Petitioner within the stipulated period prescribed under law. Subsequently, declaration proposals under Section 19(1) of the Act in Form-VII were submitted vide L.r.No.F/59/2023 dated 16.12.2023 and approved by the District Collector, Nalgonda vide Proc.No.G1/4891/2022 dated 16.01.2024. Gazette publication was also issued vide Gazette No.02 dated 17.01.2024. The declaration was further published in the following newspapers:

               1. Prabhata Velugu Telugu Daily dated 28.01.2024; and

               2. The Hans India English Daily dated 28.01.2024.

               Further, market value of the subject land was fixed at Rs.8,31,087/- per acre under Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 vide Proc.No.F/59/2023 dated 21.10.2023. Award Enquiry Notice was issued to all notified persons. However, due to non-availability of the Petitioner's address and phone number, notice under Section 21(1) of the Act was served through affixture on the Notice Board of Chilkamarry Gram Panchayat Office vide File No.F/59/2023 dated 18.11.2024.

               Accordingly, Award Proceedings No.F/59/2023 dated 06.01.2025 were passed for acquisition of Ac.0.28 guntas in Sy.No.148 along with other lands and compensation amounting to Rs.18,92,747/-(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Seven only) was awarded to the Petitioner. Thereafter, notice under Section 37(2) of the Act was also issued to the Petitioner.

               Despite issuance of endorsements dated 16.07.2025 and 22.07.2025 requesting the Petitioner to receive the compensation amount, the Petitioner did not come forward to receive the same. Hence, the compensation amount of Rs.18,92,747/- was deposited before the Hon'ble Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Hyderabad on 25.08.2025 vide Lr.No.F/59/2023 dated 14.08.2025 and accordingly LAOP No.353 of 2025 was allotted by the Hon'ble Authority.

               It is further submitted that the Petitioner had earlier approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing W.P.No.16998 of 2025 raising substantially similar grievances regarding the location and alignment of the proposed storage tank and pipelines.

               The Hon'ble High Court, by order dated 20.06.2025 in W.P.No.16998 of 2025, was pleased to observe that the Hon'ble Court is not technically equipped to decide the proposals/designs prepared for construction of storage tanks and permitted the Petitioner to submit representation before the Respondents for examination in accordance with law and the writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

               Pursuant thereto, the representations submitted by the Petitioner dated 04.06.2025, 18.07.2025 and 24.11.2025 were duly examined by the competent technical authorities.

               Upon detailed technical examination, it was found that the existing approved location of the storage tank and alignment of the pipelines were finalized strictly based on engineering feasibility, hydraulic requirements, gravity flow requirements, ayacut considerations, ground levels, field conditions and overall project requirements.

               The Detailed Project Report (DPR), project layouts and technical designs were duly approved by the competent authorities and form an integral part of the sanctioned public irrigation scheme.

               It is respectfully submitted that the relocation of the storage tank and realignment of the pipelines, as sought by the Petitioner, are technically not feasible. Any alteration in the approved alignment and location would adversely affect the hydraulic functioning of the scheme, disturb gravity flow requirements, affect the ayacut proposed to be served, necessitate revision of the approved DPR and technical sanctions and consequently result in escalation of project cost and delay in execution of the public irrigation project.

               It is further submitted that the relevant technical drawings pertaining to the proposed Main Delivery Cistern (Storage Tank) and approved pipeline alignment were furnished to the Petitioner through WhatsApp and also by hand whenever the Petitioner visited the office and requested for the same.

               It is specifically submitted that the pipelines proposed under the scheme are underground pipelines and after completion of the works the land surface will be restored. Adequate access arrangements and crossing facilities are also being provided to ensure uninterrupted ingress and egress to the remaining land of the Petitioner. Therefore, the allegation that the remaining extent of land belonging to the Petitioner would become unusable, inaccessible or unfit for agricultural, developmental or construction purposes is baseless, imaginary and unsupported by facts.

               The Respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act. 2013, approved DPR, sanctioned layouts and technical specifications and there is no illegality, arbitrariness or violation of principles of natural justice.

               It is also submitted that the present Writ Petition has been filed on substantially similar grounds which were already considered by the Hon'ble High Court in the earlier Writ Petition and therefore the present Writ Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

8. The petitioner’s primary prayer seeks a mandamus to compel the respondents to relocate the tank and realign the pipelines in a specific manner. In the considered view of this court, such a mandamus cannot ordinarily be issued. The respondents have according to the written instructions submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation already applied their mind and examined the representations submitted by the petitioner dated 04.06.2026, 18.07.2025 and 24.11.2025 in detail and found that the request of the petitioner was not feasible. This Court is not technically qualified to determine the location of the tank, which according to the written instruction extracted above, was finalized based on the engineering feasibility, hydraulic requirements and gravity flow requirements, ayacut consideration, ground levels, field conditions and overall project requirements.

9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner’s claim of violation of her right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India is misconceived. The award dated 06.01.2025 has already been passed. The petitioner did not challenge the validity of the acquisition in the present writ petition. On the contrary, the petitioner in her affidavit states that she has no objection to the acquisition per se. The petitioner’s grievance regarding the award not being served properly and the survey having been conducted in her absence pertain to the pre-award stage. Those issues ought to have been raised raised in the earlier writ petition or before the reference Court under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The said issue cannot be reagitated in this writ petition, more particularly when there is no challenge to the award.

10. As regards the compensation, the petitioner was explicitly granted liberty by the earlier order of this Court dated 20.06.2025 in W.P.no.16998 of 2025 to challenge the award before the appropriate forum or to seek alternative land in lieu of compensation. That remedy remains available and is efficacious. It is settled law that a writ petition is not maintainable for enhancement of compensation or for seeking an alternative land in lieu of compensation, when an efficacious statutory alternative remedy exists under the land acquisition statute.

11. The prayer for mandamus directing relocation and realignment of the tank in the manner sought by the petitioner cannot be accepted. The project involved is a public irrigation scheme and petitioner cannot be permitted to halt public works, especially, when there is no objection for acquisition of the land.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

13. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.