Disposed

G. Heeralal, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Nov 2021WP/16996/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the issuance of land acquisition proceedings without prior notice was filed. The court directed the authorities to pass an award after considering objections and hearing the petitioner and stayed dispossession pending due process. Writ petition disposed without costs.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to pass an award after considering objections and hearing the petitioner and not to dispossess the petitioner until the award is passed.

G. Heeralal, Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶5

wRtT PET|T|ON NO. 16996 0F 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

G. Heeralal, S/o. G Narsoji,Aged About 54 years, Fi./o. H. No. 1-190/5/1 , Gandhi Nagar, Kapra Viltage, ECiL P6st, Hyderabad - 50b06,

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The.State,.of Telangana, Represented by its principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, sebretariat. Hvrierabad

¶11

I!" Greater _Hyderabad Municipal borporation, nepreseiteO--Oy its Commissioner, Tank bund Road, Hyderabad

¶12

Special ..Collectgl. ( L,{) and Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Tankbund Road, Hyderabad

¶13

Speclal Deputy .^Collector .^{(LA), GreaterHyderabad MunicipalCorporation,} Tankbund Road, Hyderabad

¶14

t Assistant City Planner, Circle No. 1, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad

¶15

o. The State . of Telangana, Represented by its principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petltion under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned proceed ings/order vide proc. No. clilot2o2l dated 05.07.2021 under Section 15(3) of the Right ro Fair compensation And Transparency ln Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resetflement Act, 20l3and directing the 4th Respondent to acquire the property of the^petitioner admeasuring 150 sq. yards situated at Plot No. s8(part) and S9(part) in Sy. No. 317 (p), 318, 457 and 458 in Mahesh Nagar, Kapra Circte, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutiona I apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and being contrary to the provisions of the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency ln Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 and set aside the same.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all} further proceedings^pursuant to the impugned^{proceedings/order issuedvide Proc.} No. C/50/2021 dated 05.07.2021 under Section¹⁵⁽³⁾ of^{the Right} to^Fair Compensation And Transparency ln Land^{Acquisition, Rehabilitation And} Resettlement Act, 2013^pending disposal of the writ^petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VADEENDRA^JOSHI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4: GP FOR LAND^ACQUISITION

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 5: SRI SAMPATH PRABHAKAR^REDDY, S.C. FOR GHMC

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR REVENUE

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶27

WRIT PETI TION No. I 6996 of zo2t

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This writ Petition is fired to decrare the action of the 3.d respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings No.c/50/2021 dt.05.07.2O2t und,er Section 1S(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short the Act,) and directing the 4th respondent to acquire petitioner,s property admeasuring 150 sq. yards in plot No.Sg(part) and 59(part) situated in Sy.No.317(p),318, 457,45g of Maheshnagar, Kapra Circle, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶30

Heard Sri Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 5, and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for 1, 3 & 4. With their consent, this Writ Petition is being taken up for hearing and disposed of.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned proceedings issued by the 3.d respondent directing 4th respondent to acquire the subject property of the petitioner is without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner; that the said acquisition is also not intended for public purposes; and that the action of the 3.d respondent is motivated as it is at the behest of the local Corporator. He would fr-rrther contend that

¶32

in pursuance of the interim direction of this Court on 26.O7.2O2L, petitioner filed objections before the concerned authority on 16.08.2021 and the same is pending consideration. However, in the meantime, the respondentsauthorities are proceeding with precipitative action in pursuance of. the impugned proceedings.

¶33

Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, both would submit that without passing a_n award by considering the objections filed by the petitioner, the respondents-authorities would not take any further action including dispossession of the petitioner.

¶34

Having regard to the submissions made above, the respondents are hereby directed to pass an award in accordance with law, after considering the objections filed by the petitioner and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further, the respondents are hereby directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property without following due process of law.

¶35

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed

¶36

of. No order as to costs.

¶37

Consequently, miscelianeous petitions pending if any, sha-ll stand closed.

¶38

¶39

//TRUE^COPY' ^,.,3P1.i"4+t'ilH SECTION^dFTICER

¶40

To,

¶41

; i[EHlfil|tt{;r[1#rffii"s,#:?'ffi

¶42

5Jj'"6ffiT:'^JiT:,,ff;HJ

pecial Collector (LA) and Commissioner, Greater H yderabad tvlunicipal

¶47

Corporation Tankbund Road, Hyde rabad

¶48

4, The Special Dep uty Collecto r (LA ),^{Greater Hyderabad} tv'lunicipal Corporation,

¶49

Tankbund Road Hyderabad

¶50

1. The Assistant City Planner, Circle No. 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tan kbund Road, Hyderabad.

¶51

The Princi pal S ecretary, Revenue Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderab ad

¶52

One CC to Sri Vadeendra Joshi, Advocate [OpUC] 8. Two ccs to GP for Land Acquisition, nigh court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶53

One CC to Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddv. S.C. for cHtMC IOpUCt 10.Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the Sthe oi'Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶54

11.Two CD Copies.

¶55

12.One Spare Copy.

MP sab

A,$"

I t

HIGH COURT

DATED:0911112021

ORDER

1nE sIA irer
(
cr)f, 0 3 DEC 20?ll 3nz
*
,D

¶64

WP.No.16996^o12021

¶65

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶66

I r Y\rs.' !rv!6"

G. Heeralal, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Heeralal, 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

Smt. M. Preethy Swarnalatha Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Kazim All Ghazi Vs The Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

R.Srinivasulu Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation And 2 Others

Sri Venkateswara Oil Mill Vs State of Telangana

Billakuri Padma Vs The State of Telangana

Devender Sharma Vs The govt. of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary