Disposed

Venepally Venkateshwar Rao, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC3 Oct 2007WP/7645/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged submergence of lands and prohibition of fishing operations in a tank, seeking compensation under the Land Acquisition Act or an order to lower the bund. The court directed the Collector to consider pending representations and disposed of the writ petition without specific relief on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider pending representations from the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and pass appropriate orders.

Venepally Venkateshwar Rao, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.7645 of 2001

¶3

Dated: 03.10.2007

¶4

Between:

¶5

Venepally Venkateshwar Rao and another. .. Petitioners

¶6

And The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District and others.

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.7645 of 2001

¶10

ORDER;

¶11

The petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus by directing the respondents to reduce the overflow rock sluce “Alugu” so as to prevent the submergence of the petitioners’ lands under it or else pay the compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act by fixing the time limit and pass such other order or orders as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶12

2. The case of the petitioners is that they own Ac.0.25 gts. and 2.05 gts. respectively in Survey No. 32 & 317. Their main grievance is that due to raising of the bund level Alugu about three years back, their lands under Veerladevi Peda Cheruvu of Bethavolu village have come under the submergence area of the tank. They also contend that having issued them the certificate of submergence, the respondents are bound to initiate action under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the L.A.Act’) and pay them due compensation as per law. They further stated that they made representations on 10.08.1992, 01.05.1995, 22.09.1997 and 26.06.1998 besides approaching the Revenue and Irrigation authorities to settle their claim for payment of compensation under the L.A. Act, but none of the authorities have taken any steps to redress their grievances.

¶13

In paragraph 5 and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ

¶14

petition, the petitioners also stated that they, having become landless and having no source of livelihood, started fishing in the said Cheruvu and could earn some money. While so, the 4^th respondent’s Fishing Society and its members started harassing them and also interfering with their fishing operations on the ground that they are not the members of their society and they cannot undertake fishing operations in the said Cheruvu, and also that, at the instigation of the Fishing Society, the revenue authorities are prohibiting the petitioners from their fishing operations. Hence, this writ petition.

¶15

3. The first respondent filed a detailed counter stating that the lands of the petitioners do not fall under the water spread (submergence) area of Veerladevi Cheruvu and that the said Cheruvu of Bethavolu village was formed about 200 years back. It is also contended that neither the height of the bund nor the height of the weirs were raised by the respondents at any time after its formation for additional storage, as such, the allegation of the petitioners that the Irrigation Department raised the bund level about three years back is baseless. Further, it is stated that as no additional lands, much less the petitioners lands, have come under submergence area of the said tank, the claim of the petitioners that the respondents are bound to initiate action under the L.A.Act and pay them due compensation as per law is untable. More over, the petitioners are having other lands in Sy.No.11, 62, 63, 64, 269 and 317 over an extent of Ac.0.39 gts and 4.25 gts respectively, other than the lands in an extent of Ac.1.15 gts and 6.25 gts respectively in Sy.No.32 & 317 at Kondapuram village of Chilkur Mandal, as such, the contention of the petitioners that they are landless persons is false.

¶16

In paragraph 6 of the counter, it is specifically stated by this respondent that as the petitioners are not the members of the

¶17

Fishermen Cooperative Society nor do they own lands in the tank-bed, they are not entitled to carry out fishing operations in the said tank, as it was leased out to the Fishermen Cooperative Society.

¶18

4. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 4^th respondent stating that the allegation of the petitioners that their lands are submerged in the tank is absolutely false and the petitioners are not deprived of their lands. It is stated that the petitioners do not have any right of fishing in the tank, as the tank in question is in the area of operation of Fishermen Cooperative Society, Bethavolu. It is also stated that the petitioners are attempting to interfere with the fishing operations of the members of the Fishermen Cooperative Society, Bathavolu over their area of operation, including the tank in question. It is further stated that under the guise of interim order, there is interference in the fishing activity of members of the said Society and there is a sort of blackmail attempt being made by the petitioners to grab money from this respondent.

¶19

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Government Pleader for Irrigation and Sri K.Raghuveera Reddy, learned counsel appearing for R-4.

¶20

6. Having heard both the counsel and also taking into consideration the fact that the representations given by the petitioners are very much pending with the 1^st respondent, the 1^st respondent is hereby directed to consider the same as expeditiously as possible and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶21

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶22

(GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J)

¶23

Dt.03.10.2007

¶24

v v

Venepally Venkateshwar Rao, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venepally Venkateshwar Rao, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Shafiulla Vs The State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Girish Lalwani, Vs Govt. of A.P.

M/s. Lals rep. by its Proprietor Meena L. Lalwani, Vs Government of a.P., rep. by its Secretry

K.Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.P. State Financial Corporation, Vs State of A.P.

L.Satyanarayana Vs The Executive Engineer