Allowed

Sri R.Prudhvi Raju v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Nov 2021WP/4206/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the failure to pay compensation for open land held under acquired houses. Relying on a previous order in W.P. No. 553 of 2012, the Court directed the District Collector to pass a supplementary award including statutory benefits within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to pass a supplementary award in respect of the land covered by the houses with all statutory benefits within two months.

Sri R.Prudhvi Raju Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T,VINOD KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 4206 OF 2021

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

Sri R.Prudhvi Raju, S/o R,Achama raju,aged about 45 years,

¶8

R C.Ananda Raju, S/o. RC.Kishtama raju, aged about 45 years,

¶9

S N.Ram Raju, S/o. Sn.Gaarada raju, aged about 32 years,

¶10

RC.Rangamma, w/o.RC .Narasa raju, aged about 66 years,

¶11

RC. Ram Raju, S/o. RCSubha raju, aged about 76 years,

¶12

RC, Chandra Shekar Raju, S/o.RC. Ram raju, aged about 43 years,

¶13

RC. Shivaraju, S/o. RCVenkat raju. aged about 38 years,

¶14

B. RC.Laxmamma, Wo RC.Venkat raju,aged about,T4years,

¶15

T. Satyanarayana Raju, S/o. R.C. Rangaraju, aged about 50 years.

¶16

'10.Surender Raju, S/o. C. Raju, aged about 40 years.

¶17

(All are R/o. Sri Rangapur,village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, Now Wanaparthy District).

¶18

...PETITIONERS

¶19

AND

¶20

The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, lrrigation and CAD ProjectWing-LAR and R Department, Secretariat Buildings, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶21

The Special Collecor (LA), Bheema Project, Mahabubnagar, Now, Dist.Collector,Wanaparthy District.

¶22

The Special Deputy Collector,, (LA)RLISP-, Pebbair-11, N/ahabubnagar District Now Wanaparthy District.

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

Petition 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 any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 acquired an area of 9066.268 sq lrleters the 3rd respondent fixed the market value for the open area however the 3rd Respondent has not awarded compensation for

¶25

openareaofthehousesandde.notifyingopenareaasthegovernmentlandand dlrect the respondent^{l.lo.3 to pass award andpay the compensation to the. open} ;;; .i 33 horr",^{of Srirangapur(village and Mandal) MahabubnagarDistrict'} now WanaParthY^District.

¶26

IA NO: 10F 2021

¶27

Petition under^{section151 cPc praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High court mayb.e pleased to} air".i tn" Respondents^{ttos.t to 3 acquired an area of 9066.268 sq Meters the 3rd} .p"nJ"ntiiied^{the market value for the open area howeverthe 3rd Respondent} has not awarded^{compensationfor open area of the houses and de-notifyingopen} ;;; ;. in.^gou"rnurrtland by directing the respondent No.3 to pass award and puy tf," com-pensation to^{the open area of 33 houses of Srirangapur (villageand} hZnJull Mahabubnagar^{District,nowWanaparthy District and pass such other and} further order or^{orders as diet pay the compensationto us forthwith,pending} disposal of the^{above/Vrit Petition.}

¶28

Counsel for the^{Petitioners:SRl. S VENKATESHWARREDDY}

¶29

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.1: GP FORIRRIGATION & CAD}

¶30

CounselfortheRespondentNos.2&3:THEADDL.ADVoCATEGENERAL FOR GP FOR LAND^ACQUISITION

¶31

The Court made^{the following:}

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.42 06 of202l

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Writ Petition is filed to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay compensation to the open area of 33 houses belonging to petltroners.

¶35

Heard leamed counsel for petitioners and leamed Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents

¶36

The case of the petitioners is that while petitioners' houses were acquired for Rangasamudram Balancing Reservoir, the respondents have paid comper-rsation only in respect of the structures alone and no compensation was paid for the land, on which the houses are built

¶37

Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that in similar circunrstances, this Couft by its orde| dr.09-07-2012 in W.P.No.553 of 2012 while holding that mere location of the land in Gramakantam, does not mear.r that the land belongs to Govemment fol which no compensation is payable, and directed the respondents therein to^pass a suppler.nentary award and pay conrpensation in respect of the land also within a period of two montl-rs therefrorn. Leamed counsel fbr petitioner contends tl.rat petitioners in the present Writ Petition ale similarly placed persons like the petitioners in the said case since^the land that is sought to acquired is also for the same Project.

¶38

¶39

In the counter-afficlavit^{filed on behalf of 3'd respondent, though} aStandistakenthatthelandonwhich33housesarebuilt,whir:har.e acquiled by^{respondents is shown as Gramakantamland' learned} Additional Advocate^{General appearingfor respondentswould fairly} concede that the^{saidissue has been consideredby this Courtin its} order dt.09-07^{-2012in W.P.No.553 of 2012'}

¶40

Therefore,^{for the rea.sonsalike, this Writ Petition is allowed} and the 3'd respondent^{is directed to pass a supplementary awardin} lespect of the^{lar.rdcovered by the houses of the petitionerwith all} statutory benefits^{within a period of two months from the date of} receipt ofa copy^{of this older. l'tro costs'}

¶41

The miscellaneous^{petititrns pending.if any, sl"rallstand closed'}

¶42

SD/.T.SRINIVAS AS SISTANT^REGISTRAR

,TRUE^COPYi/

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The^{PrincipalSecretary,lrrigation and CAD ProjectWing-LAR and R} ;;;;til;i^{slaGot rtirt"d'"t'secretariat Buildinss' BRKR Bhavan'}

¶47

Hvderabad

¶48

, i#"sffi;l^{collector(LA), BheemaProject' Mahabubnagar'Now'} Dist.Collector,Wanaparthy^District'

¶49

3 The Special^{oeputvcoiietto''(m)nltSp-'Pebbair-1'1 ' Mahabubnagar} District Now^{WanaparthyDistrict'}

¶50

6;'aC i;^{sri. s VenkaieshwarReddv Advocate{oPUCl} CnO' higf'^{Courl for the State of Telangana'}

¶51

Two CCs^{to GPtor,f} "igu"iln'I (ouT)

¶52

o. i"*"o'ict^{to the GPfor Land Acquisition'High Court for the Stateof} Telangana.^(OUT)

¶53

7, Two CD^CoPies.

¶54

B. One^{SPare CoPY}

CrtJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:1811112021

ORDER

WP.No.4206 ot 2021

g STAIA
1
^l
v
I a
oo 25 toY1'{ltl .b
4.
-t ,/l
-'.-,.

¶62

Allowing the Wt) Without costs.

Sri R.Prudhvi Raju v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R.Prudhvi Raju 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Komarapu Tirupathi Rao Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd. and 4 others

Simra Constructions Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

Abdul Waseem Vs The State of Telangana

Valiveti Padmavathi Devi Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Dr. Saladi Sarath Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

T. Sudhakara Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others