Disposed

Nagulavancha Pushpalatha and 3 Others v. The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Telangana HC15 Mar 2022WP/11461/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the alleged illegal deprivation of agricultural land for road construction. Relying on confirmation that work has not commenced, the court directed authorities to verify land impact and proceed, if necessary, strictly under land acquisition laws.

What did the court decide?

Directed authorities to verify if petitioners' land is affected for the road project and act strictly under land acquisition laws if so.

Nagulavancha Pushpalatha and 3 Others Vs The State of… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH^{DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE A.ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO :11461^{OF 2022}

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Naoulavancha Pushpalatha, W/o.^{Yadagiri Rao, Age 52 years, Occ:} Agiiculture. R/o. Thurkapally^{Village, Kanagal l,4andal, Nalgonda District}

¶9

2 Naoulavancha Muthvam Rao, S/o.^{NarayanRao, Age 50 years Occ:} Agriculture, R/o. Thurkapally^{Village, Kanagallt/andal, Nalgonda District'}

¶10

Nagulavancha Venkateswar^{Rao, S/o China} -Naraiah,^{AgeSO^years'Occ:} Agriculture, R/o. Thurkapally^{Village, Kanagal Mandal, Nalgonda District'}

¶11

Naoulavancha Shvam Prasad, Sio.^{NarsimhaRao, Age 40 years'Occ:} Agriculture, R/o. Ttiurkapally^{Village, Kanagal1t/andal, Nalgonda District'}

¶12

...PETTTIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The State of Telangana, Represented^{by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat} nal anO Rural Dev6lopment^{Departmeni Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad'}

¶15

2 The Commissioner, Panchayat^{Ra.jand Rural Development Department,} Panchayat Raj Building.^{Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad.}

¶16

3 The Engineer-in-Chief , Panchayat^{Raj Engineering Department, Erramanzil,} Hyderabad.

¶17

4 The District Collector and District^{ProgrammeCo-ordinator, Mahathma} e anOni National Rural^{Employment GuaranteeSceheme, NalgondaDistrict.}

¶18

E The District Panchayat^{Raj Engineer,PlU, NalgondaDistrict.}

¶19

Cl The Executive Engineer,^{Panchayat Raj Nalgonda, Nalgonda District'}

¶20

7 The Executive Engineer,^{Panchayat Raj Miryalguda, Nalgonda District'}

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article²²⁶ ol^{lhe constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filedtherewith,the High courtmaybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order^{or direction,morein the nature of writ}

¶23

of MandamuS,^{declaring the action of the respondentsin trying to deprive the} petitionersoftheirAgriculturelandsi.e.lstpetitionerisanextent Acr 2.2650 guntas in Sy.No.107/AA112,^{2nd Petitioner is an extentAcr'10700} guntas in Sy.No.102, Acr.1.0800^{guntasin Sy.No.102/2, Acr'0 0800 guntas} in Sy.No. 1O4tA2 and Acr.1.0000^{guntas in Sy.No 107/A2,3rd Petitioneris an} extent oi Acr.0.0300^{guntas in sy.No.104/45and 4th petitioner is an extent of Acr.2.2650} guntas in Sy.No.107/A1/,1 situated^{at Thurkapallyvillage, Kanagal[,4andal,} Nalgonda District^{even without followingthe due procedure contemplatedunder} law or taking recourse^{to acquisition or requisition proceedings for the purpose of} constructing a metal^{road that too without issue any noticeas being illegal,} arbitrary and is in^{violation of principles of naturaljusticeand fair playapart from} being in violation^{of Articles14, 21 oI the constitutionof lndia and consequently} direct the respondents^{herein not to interfere with the petitionerspeaceful} possessibn and enjoyment over^{the aforesaid petitioners agriculturelands} without following due^{processof law.}

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶25

Petition under Section^{151 cPc praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High courtmay be pleased to} direct the^{respondents herein not to interfere with the Petitioner'speaceful} po ssesslo n and enjoyment of the^{Agriculture lands i e. 1st petitioner is an extent} Acr.2.2650 guntas in Sy.No.107/AA112,^{Znd Petitioner is an extent Acr'10700} guntas in SY.No.102' Acr.1.0800^guntas in^Sy.No.102/2' Acr.0.0800^guntasin Sy.No.^{'104lA2 & Acr.'1} .0000^guntas in SY.No.107/A2,^3rd Petitioner is an extent of Acr.0.0300^guntas in Sy.No.104/45 and^{4th petitioner is an extent of}

¶26

Acr.2.2650 guntas in Sy.No.107/4111 situated at. Thurkapally village, Kanagal Itrlandal, Nalgonda District, without following due process of law by dlspossession or otherwise, pending disposal of the above W.P.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : SRl. LAXMAIAH KANCHANI

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶30

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 1 1461 of 2022

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.4. With their consent, this Writ Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

¶34

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in trying to deprive the petitioners of their agriculture lands situated at Thurkapally Village, Kanagal Mandal, Nalgonda District, without lollowing due procednre as contemplated under law or taking recourse to acquisition or requisition proceedings for the purpose of constructing a metal road without issuing any notice, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶35

Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf ol the Panchayat Raj, on written instructions issued by the District Panchayat Raj Engineer, has stated that the work commencement order for laying metal road from Thurkapally to Hydalapur (Ajalapuram), Kanagal Mandal, with an estimated

¶36

¶37

AAR, J w.P.No.l l46l of2022

¶38

cost of Rs.30,00,000/- has not^{yet commencedtilldate.} The work has not been started and^{the mark out has not given} by the Panchayat Raj Engineers.

¶39

Having regard to the same, Writ^{Petition is disposed of} directing the authorities concerned^{to verify as to whetherany} lands of the petitioners are affected in^{laying the road and if any} part of their land is affected, the respondent authority^{sha11 take} action strictly in accordance^{with the land acquisition} proceedings. Miscellaneous applications, if any^{pending,shall} stand closed. There shail be no^{order as to costs.}

¶40

SD/-K.SAILESHI ASSISTAN'4EGISTRAR //rRUE coPY// sEcfiml oFFtcER

¶41

To, The Principal Secretary,^{Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department} Secretariat Buildings,^{Stateof Telangana, Hyderabad'}

¶42

The Commissionei^{Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department'} Panchayat Raj Building,^{Himayat Nagar,Hyderabad}

¶43

ft,e rngineer_in_chieflpanchiyat^{Raj Engineering Department, Erramanzil,} Hyderabad.

¶44

The District Collector^{and District Programme Co-ordinator,lvlahathma} Gandhi National Rural^{Employment Guarantee Sceheme, NalgondaDistrict.}

¶45

E The District Panchayat^{Raj Engineer,PlU, Nalgonda District'}

¶46

6 The Executrve Engineer,^{Panchayat Raj Nalgonda, Nalgonda District} 7 The Executive Engineer,^{Panchayat Raj Miryalguda, Nalgonda District'} One CC to SRl.^{LAXI,4AIAHKANCHANI,AdvocateIOPUC]}

¶47

8I Two CCs to GP FOR^{PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, High Court for the} State of Telangana at^Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶48

10.Two CCs to GF FOR^{REVENUE, High court for the state of Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶49

'1 1.Two CD CoPies

¶50

12.One Spare^CoPY

HIGH COURT

DATE D:1 510312022

ORDER

1l\g STA
q
4, I
I cJJ 01 APH 2m2
):. i
+

¶56

WP.No.11461 of 2022

¶57

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶58

\\ I
--,/1-,2\\w

Nagulavancha Pushpalatha and 3 Others v. The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagulavancha Pushpalatha and 3 Others v. The State of Telangana and 6 Others

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

Tarimela Vijay Kumar Vs M. Raghunandan Rao

M/s. Madhukunj Flat Occupants Welfare Association Vs The State of Telangana, And 5 Others

Jangam Amulya Vs The State of Telangana

KannekantiYadagiri Vs State of Telangana

Gongalla Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Gongolla Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana and 12 others