Allowed

Smt.Potharla Yashoda Devi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Aug 2019WP/9328/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL petitioner claiming ownership of land alleged damage by the Corporation during nala widening, seeking compensation. The Court held that if the work requires acquisition, the Corporation must follow enquiry procedures and RFR&RA 2013, ensuring compensation and non-interference with possession.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to initiate proceedings under RFR&RA, 2013 if Corporation compensation offer is unacceptable; possession not to be interfered with.

Smt.Potharla Yashoda Devi Vs The State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 9328 OF 2019

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the landed property in an extent of 1500 square yards covered by H.No. 18-1-292/181, Plot Nos. 181 to 186 in Survey No. 83/P, 84/P and 85/P situated at Shivaji Nagar, Uppuguda, Hyderabad. She claims to have constructed a house in an extent of 500 square yards. Her further case is that she had purchased the said land through sada bainama and the respondent – Corporation in the process of widening the nala existing adjacent to their land, are damaging the construction raised by her without compensating therefor. She also submits that she has no objection for widening the nala if the procedure prescribed in law is followed.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation would submit that the petitioner has no right over the property and in fact, she had encroached into the nala and made the subject construction. In spite of the same, the Corporation is willing to pay the value of the structures, adds the learned Standing Counsel. He further submits that compensation for the land also would be paid, provided the petitioner establishes her right thereon.

¶7

In the light of the above said submissions, as Article 300-A of the Constitution of India guarantees a citizen right to his / her property, if the property of the petitioner is required for widening or re-construction of nala , the Corporation would certainly be entitled to acquire the same, but however, by conducting an enquiry duly affording an opportunity to the petitioner to place the material documents evidencing her right and title over the property so as to

¶8

¶9

enable the Corporation to assess the value. In case, the value, as offered by the Corporation is not acceptable to the petitioner, necessary steps be taken in accordance with law, i.e. by initiating the proceedings under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Needless to say, meanwhile, the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment over the subject property shall not be interfered with.

¶10

The Writ Petition, with this order, is disposed of. No costs.

¶11

The miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

¶12

____ _________________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
14 th August 2019
ksld

Smt.Potharla Yashoda Devi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Potharla Yashoda Devi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pingali Seetharavamma, Vs Kishore Kumar

Yagna Narayana Reddy Vs Posham Ramdas

T.Krishna Rao Vs Mr N Venkata Reddy

Syed nusrath Ali Vs The State of Telangana

M/s M.S.Traders Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

P. Madhav Yadav Vs The State of Telangana