Allowed

N Kesava Reddy v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Mar 2022WP/13624/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 and CPC Section 151, the Telangana High Court disposed of the matter at the admission stage. The petitioner sought allotment of alternative land acquired for road widening. The Court issued a prima facie direction to the District Collector to dispose of the representation expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.3 to dispose of the petitioner's representation regarding alternative land allotment within four weeks from receipt of the order copy.

N Kesava Reddy Vs the State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF I\4ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 13624 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

N,KESAVA REDDY, S/o.Late Bal Reddy Aged about 62 years, Occ.Business, R/o Athevelli Village, tt/edichal lt/andal, lriled chal-l,4alkajgiri District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Rep. by its Principle Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

2 THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Commissioner, Secretariat Hyderabad.

¶12

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Medchal-lt/alkajgiri Ditrict

¶13

THE REVENUE DlVlSloN OFFICER, Medchal [Vlandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District

¶14

5, TH E TAH ISLDAR, lvledchal^{lr,4andal, lVledchal-lr/alka.lgi ri District.}

¶15

The It4edchal-lr/ unicipa lity, Medchal-l,4alkajg iri District, Rep. by^Ir,4unicipal Commissioner.

¶16

..RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{Hiqh Court maybe} pleased to issue any Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of I,4andamus, declaring the action of the Respondents more^particularly Respondent No.3 in not issuing^proceedings in file No.E2l144'1^{12017for allotment} of land admeasuring Ac.0.11 Gts in Sy.No.225 situated Athevelli^{Village,Medchal} l\ilandal, lVedchal-Malkajgiri District in view of acquired^{land Plot Nos.11, 18, 25,} 33 part and 41part, admeasuring 800 Sq.yrdsⁱⁿ Sy.No.17^and 7^situatedat Medchal Village and mandal, IVedchal-Malka.igiri District in the^{year2004 for} laying road from Housing Board colony to Railway Station tvledchal, which^was accepted by Petitioner, but the same has not been implemented as^{on todayas}

¶18

such the same is bad^{underlaw, illegal,and againstto the principlesof natural} justice and consequently Direct the Respondent No.3 to issue^{proceedings in file} No.E2l1441t2Ol 7 for allotment^{of landadmeasuringAc.0.11 Gts in sY.No.225} situated at Athevelli Village,^{Medhcal-Malkajgiri District, in lieu of acquired land in} the^year 2oo4 for^{laying the road fromHousing Board colony to Railway station} tr/edchal.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

Petition under Section 151^{CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} direct the Respondent^{No.3 to issue proceedings in file No.E21144112017 for} allotment of land admeasuring^{Ac.0.11 Gts in sY.No.225 Situated at Athevelli} Village, N/edchal Mandal, Medhcal^{lvlalkajgiriDistrict, in view of acquired land Plot} Nos.1 1 , 18, 25, 33part^{and 41 part, admeasuring 800 Sq.yrdsin Sy.No 17 and7} situated at Medchal^{Village and Mandal,triledcha l-tr/a lkajgiri District in the year} 2OO4 for laying road^{from Housing Board colony to Railway Station Medchal and} as such other relief or^{reliefs as this Hon'blecourt deemsfit and properin the} circumstances of the case^{and in the interest of Justlce.}

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl'^{K.PRADEEPREDDY}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent^{No's.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.6:SRl N.PRAVEEN KUMAR (SC FOR MC)}

¶24

The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶25

1'IIB IION'BLB^{SRI JUSTICE A.'AI}TIISTIEKREDDY} WRIT PIi,TITION^{No.l 362J of 2022}

¶26

OIII)EII:

¶27

Heard tl.re leartred^{counsel for thc petitioner' the learned} Government^{Pleader for Revenue appearingon behalfof} respondent Nos.l^{to 5, and Sri N' PraveenKumar' the learned} Standing Counsel^{ibr Municipalities appearingor.r behalf of} respondent No.6.^{With their consent'this Writ Petition is} be ing disposed^{of at the admission stagc'}

¶28

Questioning^{the action of respondentNo'3 in not issuing} proceedings for^{allotrnent of the land, admeasuringAc'0'11} guntas in Sy.No.225,^{situated Athevelli Village'Medchal} Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri^{District, in lieu of the acquired} land llr/e^{Plot Nos'tl,18, 25, 33 part & 4l part'admeasuring} 800 Square^{yalds, in Sy.Nos'1J at'rc'7', sittrated at Medchal} Village and^{Mandal,Medchal-MalkalgiriDistrict'in the year} 2004 fbr laying^{the roacl tiom Housing Board Colonyto}

¶29

¶30

\ \r \ ' ii,) t3r)2^r )r^)1r,,.1

¶31

Railway Station^{Medchal. the petitionerhas filed the present} Writ Petition.

¶32

J A perusal of^{the documentsfiledby the petitionershorvs} that the respondent^No.3 -^{District Collector, Medchal-} Malkajgiri District,^{has adclressed letters datedl7'03'2018and} 15.07.2020, to the^{respondent No.5 - Tahsildar,Medchal} Mandal., Meclchal-Malkajgiri^{District,ancl the responclont} No.6-Municipal Commissioner,^{Medchal Municipality,} Medchal-Malkajgiri^{Distlict,respcctively. and inturn,} Tahsildar ar.rd the Municipal^{Commissioner have givcntlieir} repofts to the District^Collector.

¶33

,+ It is the casc of the^{petitionerthat the pctitionerhas} ah'eac1y tttade a^{rcpresentationtothe rcsponclellts} oll 2l .04.2017 and evett^{thoughuore than lbur years have lapscd'} the District Collector^{is not taking any decision Ibr allotmeut} of alternativc land^{to the petitionerir.r lieu of his plots. rvhicli} were acquired lbr thc^{pr'npose of road wiclenirlg.}

¶34

¶35

AAR, J w.P No.:362:t of 2022

¶36

Having regard to the above, without going into the merits and demerits of the case, this Court is of the prinrafacie opinion that the ends ofjustice would be met, if the respondent No.3 is directed to dispose of the reprcsentation ntade by the petitioner otl 2t-04-20t7. AS expeditiously as possible. prel-erably, within a periocl of four (4) weeks fiorn the ciate ol' reccipt o1'a copy of this order. cluly taking into consicleration the Reports oi' Tahsildar as well as the Conintissioner ol' Municipality.

¶37

Tl're writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶38

Misccllaneous applications, if any pcnding, shall stand

¶39

closcd. There shall be no orcler as to costs.

/iTRUE COPYi'

,.r/

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1. The Principle Secretary, Revenue Department, State Of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Chief Commissioner Of Land Administration, Government of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3. The District Collector, I.4edchat-N,4a lkajg iri Ditrict 4. The Revenue Division Officer, trlgQcnbi [,4andal, I,4edcha t-Ma tkajgiri District 5. The Tahisldar, [,4edchal I,4andal, lV]edchal- N/a tka to iir Disirict. 6 The l\rlunicipal commissionel Medcha r-lr,4unicipitiry, ueochat-L,larkajgiri District 7. One CC to SRt. K.PRADEEP REDDY eovocite tcibLtcl B Two CCs to GP FOR REVENU.E.,High -C9q4_fgr^{ine Sriie of Telangana.[OUT]} 9.- gne CC to SRt N.PRAVEEN KUI\4AR (SC FOR tr,lc), AOvocatelO"pUCf '-- ' 10. Two CD Copies. 11 One Soare boov. \ t GB ;tr

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310312022

ORDER

WP.No.13624 of²⁰²²

t HE SI4
I
I oo 13 iiit M ,I
1t-
{')

¶49

DISPOSING OF THE^WP

¶50

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶51

.J \ E 1)--

N Kesava Reddy v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Kesava Reddy 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

M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Traders and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Boddu Lingaiah and 4 others Vs Union of India and 3 others

Chakali Ramulu and 3 others Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Sri Surya Prakash Charitable Society Vs The Registrar Registrar of Societies, Red Hills

A. Narsimha Reddy and 27 others Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Muthuam Rama Krishna and 2 Others Vs State of Telangana and 5 Others