Writ Appeal dismissed as no case for interference was made out since the impugned order was passed based on the consent of the HMDA regarding land acquisition and compensation.
Writ Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
I,4ONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 2 2s oF 2022
writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 0811212021 in W.P.No.2582 of 2019 on the file of the High Court.
Betwee n:
2, The .Project Director, Outer Ririg Road Project Hyderabad l,4etropolitan Development Authority, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad.
AND
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
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 pteased to suspend the operation of the orders passed in W. P. No. 2582 of 2019 dated 08t12t2021
Counsel for the Appellants; SRI Y. RAMA RAO(SC FOR HMDA)
Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI MAYUR MUNDRA
Counsel for Respondent No. 2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT
The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CI{ANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KI.'MAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL No.225 OF 2022
JUDGMENT, rlc.ttk tn,t'L)r'ttnctrcJ.r!sr,r, snrlsr c/kn./(,.s/k,f,,a/
The present \'rit appeal is arising out of the order clared 08.12.2O21 passed bv the learnccl Singlc Jr-rdge in W.P.No.2582 of 20 19.
Thc undisputcd .lacts ol the casc reveal tllat rhe respondcnt No. i 1u,rit iletitione r came Llp bclbrc ihc lrrrrnrd Srngle .iudge siatiirg on zrflld:l i'. iltat thr- .ltrllcliaitLS herein i.c., l{vderabad MetropoliLan Dcvci()l)rncn.t Ar-rthoritl' {FIMDA) irave t:t1<en posscssirtrr oi ltis liind irrtrl rio conll)(,nsiliiol Ittis ltctn paid to him. Whrie tl'rc nrau('r'rlus hearcl bv tlte learnccl Srnglc judge, u categoric.ri st.tLernent *'as made bv rhc IJMDA that thev iravc taken posscssiorr ol' onh 93-:1 squ:rre vards of ianci belonging to the rcspotldent No.1/rvrit petitioner and the claim of the re spondent No. l/writ Jtctitloncr !'.is [or morc ]and. Hou'ever, in vietv ol the statemcnt made b,y thc HlDA befole the lcarned Single Judgc, the respondent No. l/ri rit ltetrtioncr confinecl his clain-r onl-\ to 93-{ squarc vards and in tltosc circLlmstances, the lcirrned Single. Judge , in paragrapl-rs 15 and 16. has hcld as unclcr:-
"15. Though there is a dispute ivith regard to the extent of land which the petitioner claims as having been dispossessed, while the respondents admit to an extent of 934 square yards only, the learned Senior Counsel appcaring for the petitioner fairly concedes that his client lr,ould agree, if the land acquisition proceedings are initiated in respect of 934 square yards as mentioned in Memo dated 01,04.2014 and compensation is paid expeditious)y.
The learned Single Judge has simply directed to initiate land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(Act 30 of 2013) and to pay compensation within a period of three months. The order is confined to 934 square yards. Now, the HMDA is trying to take a somersault before this Court.
In the considered opinion ol this Court, as thc order u'as passed bv the learned Single Judge on the basjs of the consenl
given by the HMDA, no case for interference is made out in the
matter.
Resultantly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
ciosed. There shall be no order as to costs.
SD/.M.VIJAYA BHASKAR DEPUTY REGIS R
,TRUE COPY'
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1 One CC to Sri Y Rama Rao, SC For HIVDA, Advocate IOPUC]
2 One CC to Sri Mayur lVundra Advocate IOPUCI Two CCs to GP For lviunicipal Administration & Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies 5. One Spare Copy I\i BC BS
HIGH COURT
DATED: 041A412022
c TAI€
1
^
a'
z
1g lln znz I
oo
^?.
i) S PATC
JUDGMENT
WA.No.225 of2022
DISMISSING THEWRIT APPEAL
WITHOUT COSTS
-4
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority
K. Vittal Reddy
State of Telangana
Satish Chandra Sharma
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
