Dismissed

Rameshethy Baswanth v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Jun 2021WP/13438/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition questioning alleged unconstitutional action by respondents to lay a culvert on petitioner's land. Court noted no work was undertaken and dismissed the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to interfere with petitioner's possession of the subject land except in accordance with procedure established by law.

Rameshethy Baswanth Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 13438 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

BgnLes!,glhy^{Baswanth, S/o.Viswanath,Aged about 56 Years,Occ.PrivateEmployee,} R/o.Sr.203 Duttakrupa Nivas, Hadapsar, Pune, lMaharastra, presently Bichkunda Tdwn, Kamareddy District.

¶9

..,PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Roads and Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, Kamareddy District, At Kamareddy.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Bichkunda Division, At Bichkunda Town, Kamareddy District.

¶14

The Superintending Engineer, (R and B), Kamareddy District, At Kamareddy Town and District.

¶15

The Asst.Executive Engineer, (R and B), Blchkunda Division, At Bichkunda Town, Kamareddy District.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Madnoor lt,4andal, MadnoorTown, Kamareddy

¶17

?'..J["JirO*O=*r,

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus declarrng the action of respondents more particularly that of respondent No.3 and 5 in attempting to lay a culvert in and through the subject land without any prior notice, without following due process of law or without taking steps under the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2015 is challenged in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 1a, 19 (1) (g),21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents not to take over any portion of the subject land admeasuring Ac.0-22 guntas in Sy.No.3/E situated at Dongli Village, Shivar of [/adnoor t/andal, Kamareddy District

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to.direct the respondents not to disturb my possession over the subject land admeasuring Ac.0-22 guntas in Sy.No.3/E situated at Dongli Village, Shivar of Madnoor Mandal, Kamareddy District

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VIJAY B PAROPAKARI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,4 & 5 : GP FOR ROADS AND BUILDINGS

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 6 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶25

The Court at the stage of admission made the following:^ORDER

¶26

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶28

WRIT PETITI ON No.13438 of2O2l

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings for respondent Nos.i, 4 and 5, the leamed Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos,2 and 6, and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent No.3. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶31

In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the action of respondent Nos.3 and 5 in attempting to lay a culvert in and through the subject land, admeasuring Ac.0.22 guntas, in Survey No.3/E, situated at Dongli Village, Shivar of Madnoor Mandal, Kamareddy District, without following due process of law.

¶32

Learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings, on instructions, has stated that the road work is not taken up in the subject location and that culvert is not yet constructed and that the R&B Department has neither encroached the petitioner's land nor executed any work beside his lield.

¶33

In view of the above made submissions, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed and the Writ petition is disposed of directing the official respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the subject land, except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

¶34

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand ose , There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

SD/- N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶36

\r-_, SECTION OFFICER

¶37

To 1. The Principal secretary, Roads and Buildings, state of relangana, secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶38

¶39

The District Collector, Kamareddy District, At Kamareddy.

¶40

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Bichkunda Division, At Bichkunda Town, Kamareddy District.

¶41

The Superintending Engineer, (R and B), Kamareddy District, At Kamareddy Town and District.

¶42

The Asst.Executive Engineer,^(R and B), Bichkunda^{Division,At Bichkunda} Town, Kamareddy District.

¶43

The Tahsildar, Mednoor^{Mandal, MadnoorTown,KamareddyDistrict.}

¶44

One CC to Sri Vijay B Paropakari,^Advocate IOPUC] - . B. Two CCs to GP^{foi Roads and Buildings,HighCourt for the State ot Ielangana} at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶45

g. ii;o'Cili;bi'-tor. heu"nre, High Court for the^{State of Telangana'Hvderabad} (OUT)

¶46

r o. i"wi'ics to^{Gp for Land Acquisition, High courtfor the stateof Telangana,} Hyderabad^(OUT)

¶47

1 1.Two CD^Copies

¶48

12.One SPare^CoPY

! I

HIGH^COURT

DATED:1810G12021

t 5 TA
q
:l ,I
25 rl ., r'l t,
'J

¶56

ORDER

¶57

WP.No.13438^{of 2021}

¶58

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS.

¶59

Rameshethy Baswanth v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshethy Baswanth 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. v. v.Rajendra Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Thota Devender Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. G.K.R.S. Properties LLP Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. P Sharada Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Afzal Khan Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Hameed Pasha Vs The State of Telangana