Allowed

Vakiti Hanumanthu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Jun 2021WP/8657/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, treating the petition as a writ in the nature of mandamus concerning delayed land acquisition compensation, disposed of the matter at the admission stage by directing the State authorities to enhance and deposit the compensation amount expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to deposit the enhanced compensation amount to the credit of E.P. No.40 of 2020 within four months of receipt of the order.

Vakiti Hanumanthu Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 8657 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vakiti Hanumanthu, S/o. Sandappa, aged about 55^years.

¶9

Vakiti Padmamma, W/o. Manappa, aged about 31^years.

¶10

Vijayalakshmi, W/o. Sudhakar Reddy, Aged about 26^years.

¶11

Akhila, D/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged about 21^years.

¶12

(All are Occupation: Agriculturists, R/o. Nandimalla Village, Atmakur It4andal, Wanaparthy Dlstrict.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, lrrigation^Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶16

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary Finance and Planning Deparlment, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶17

The Chief Commissioner, Land Administration NampallyStation^Road, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶18

The District Collector, Wanapar"thy, Telangana State.

¶19

The Spl. Dy. Collector (LA) Unit, RLISP-ll Pebbair, Head Quarter^{at Wanaparthy,} Telangana State.

¶20

The Executive Engineer, PJP, L.A.R.-Division,^{Pebbair, WanaparthyDistrict.}

¶21

(C.T. is amended as per Court Order, daled 27.04.2021 in l.A.No.2 of²⁰²¹⁾

¶22

(R-6 is amended as per Court Order, dated 15.06.2021 in l.A.No.3 oI²⁰²¹⁾

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High court may be pleasedto} issue a writ, order or direction^particularly one^{in the natureof Writ of Mandamus} declaring the inaction of the Respondents in^{not depositingthe entire decreetal} amount to the credit of E.P.No.40 of 2020 against^{o.P.No.53of 2018 on the file of the} Senior Civil Judge Court, Gadwal,^{TelanganaState are arbitrary, illegal,} u ncon stitutiona I and contrary to the Judgment^{of Larger Bench reportedin 2005(3)} ALD 233 and consequently direct^{the Respondents to deposit the same to the credit} of the said E. P.

¶25

il2il

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶27

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 herein to deposit entire decreetal amount to the credit of E.p.No.40 of 2020 against o.P.No.53 or zolB on the file of the senior civil Judge court. GadwalTelanana State, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. S. VENKATESHWAR REDDy

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 5 & 6:

¶30

GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

¶31

counsel for the Respondent No.2: cp FoR GENERAL ADMlNlsrRATloN AND GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶33

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

¶34

I I

¶35

TTTE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE A.ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶36

WRIT PETI^{TIONNo. 8657of2O2L}

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

Heard the learned^{counsel for the petitioners, learned} Government Pleader^{for Irrigation and Command Area Development} for respondent Nos.l, 5^{and 6, learned Government Pleaderfor} GAD and Finance &^{Planning for respondentNo'2, and learned} Government Pleader^{for Revenuefor respondent Nos'3and 4' With} theirconsent,theWritPetitionisdisposedofatthestageof admission itself.

¶39

Aggrieved by the^{inactionof the respondentsin depositing the} decretal amount^{to the creditof E.P' No'40 of 2O2O in O P' No 53 of} 2018 on the file^{of the Senior CivilJudge's Court'Gadwal'the} present writ Petition^{is filed.}

¶40

As can be seen^{from the record, the notificationunder} Section 4 (1) the^{Land Acquisition Act, 1894' was issuedon} i3'06.2011andtheAwardwaspassedon02.03.2013fixingthe compensation of^{Rs.65,000/- per acre'Subsequently'the} compensation^{amount wasenhanced toRs'132/-per} sq. meter from^{Rs'65,000/- per acre by virttre of the orderand} decreedated18.03.2020passedino.P.No.53of2018bythe Senior Civil^{Judge, Gadwal,and the said orderhas becomefinal as} no appeal^{was preferredquestioning the same'}

¶41

Having^{regard to the abovebackdrop of the case' this Court} is of thc^{consicieredvie$'tha1the aurthorities cannot take thcir or'r'n} time to deposit^{thc amounts which are alreaclY enharrcedby thc} competcnt^{Court.The inact'ion of the respondents in paying thc} enhanced^{compensationamollnts in time to the petitioners'r'rho} are already^{suffering from the loss of their lands' wouldmake them}

¶42

¶43

to also suffer untold hardship and misery and run from pillar to post for getting the enhanced compensation deposited and incur expenses for the same. They will also have to incur additional expenditure for approaching the Court for seeking the required relief. With the raising inflation, the value of the money will also go down and the delayed O"r-.n, ol the enhanced compensation will result in the compensation amount itself losing all the charm and utilit1,. If the petitioners or similarly situated persons receive the enhanced compensation u,ithin the time, they will be irr a position to use that amount in some other investments and get some returns over the same.

¶44

Having regard to the same, the official respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount, in terms of the order and decree, dated 1g.03.2020, passed in Op No.53 of 20 18 by the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶45

Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of.

¶46

Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any,

¶47

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

SD/. K. ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶49

//TRUE COPY/i

¶50

sEcTtoN oFFtcER

¶51

sEcTtoN oFFtcER

¶52

To, 1 I!9,?rll.ipsl secrerary lrrigation Department, State of rerangana, Secretariat Buildings. sattabad, Hyderabad

¶53

2 The secretary. Finance and Planning Department, State of relangana, secretariat Burtdings, Saif abad, Hvderabad.

¶54

3 The chief commissiorier, Land Administration Nampafly station Road, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶55

The District Collector, Wanaparthv. Telanoana State.

¶56

The Spl. Dy. Collector (LA) Unit, RLISp-ll-pebbair, Head euarter at Wanaparthy. Telangana State.

¶57

The Executive Engineer,. pJp, L.A.R.-Division, pebbair, Wanaparthy District. 6. One CC to Sri S. Venkatesn',i,ar ReOox AOvo'cbte tOpilCl ' '^{- -' -"}

¶58

Two ccs to GP for rrrigation.& commiho nrqq oe'vetopm'ent Department, High court for the State of Tetanoaia at nvoerioat. loun^{- - ' -}

¶59

Two ccs to GP for Glenerar A<iministratio'n, Hi{h court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶60

Two ccs to GP for Finance and^planning, High court for the state of relangana at Hyderabad. IOUT'I

¶61

Two ccs to GP for Revenue, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. IOUT]

¶62

1 1 . Two CD Coples

CHR

HIGH COURT

DATED:1510612021

ORDER

W.P.No.8657 of 2021

1 ll TA
aJ
O
2 ? ,llili 2,,121
a.
<br>

¶69

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS

Vakiti Hanumanthu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakiti Hanumanthu 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

KandukuruBhadraiah Vs The State of Telangana

K. Chandra Prakash and Another Vs the Dy. Collector and 7 Others

Chinturi Gopala Rao Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Aishwarya Infra Vs Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

Mohammed Jahangir Vs The State of Telangana and 10 others

Srinivas Sajjanapu Vs State of Telangana