Disposed

G. Gopichand and 3 others v. State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC14 Dec 2022WP/19598/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of writ petition questioning delay in land acquisition compensation. Court permitted petitioners to submit representation to the Collector to ventilate grievances and direct payment, requiring the Collector to decide within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to submit representation to Respondent No. 3 regarding compensation grievance; Collector directed to decide within three months.

G. Gopichand and 3 others Vs State of Telangana and 2… — Money Laundering | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶ I

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 19598 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

G. Gopichand, S/o. Nagabhushanam lndian, Aged about 74 years

¶9

G. Bulli Prasad, S/o. Surya Koti Prakash Rao lndian, Aged about 71 yeas

¶10

G. Usha Rani, Wo. Bulli Prasad lndian, Aged about 65 years

¶11

G. lndira, Wo. Venkateswara Rao lndian, Aged about 68 years

¶12

All the Petitioners are presently staying at Alapati Nagar, Tenali, Guntur District

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

'1. State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad z Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (lndustries), Hyderabad J District Collector Ranga Reddy District

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying the compensation to the Petitioners pursuant to the Proceedings No. D/189/'1994-2 dated 27-1 1-2009 as illegal, null, void and arbitrary and consequently direct the 2nd

¶18

Respondent to pay the compensation to the Petitioners for the land affected in Survey Nos.48, 49 and 53 of Mallapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶19

lA NO:^'l OF 2019

¶20

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affldavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased^pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to deposit the amount either in the Court or in the Treasury relating to the Petitioners' land affected in land acquisition for road widening as^per Proceedings No. D/'189/1994-2 dated 27-11-2009 issued by the 2nd Respondent, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K DURGA PRASAD

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents 1 TO 3: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

I t

¶25

¶26

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER^KUMAR

¶27

WRIT PETITION No. 19598 of 2OL9

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the^petitioners as^{well as} learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition^{appearing for} respondents No. I to 3.

¶30

This Writ Petition is hled questioning the action of respondents in not paying the compensation to the petitioners pursuant to the proceedings No.D I 189 I 1994-2 dated 27.1L.2OO9 in respect of lands situated in Survey Nos.48, 49 and 53 of Mallapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District admeasuring Ac.1.38 guntas as illegal and arbitrary.

¶31

However, counter affidavit is filed by the respondent No.2 contending that no part of the land in Survey Nos.48, 49 and 53 of Mallapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District were acquired by the respondents and hence payment of compensation to the petitioners does not arise.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that though no part of the above said survey numbers are notified for acquisition of the petitioners are dispossessed from the land situated in survey Nos.48, 49 and 53 without paying any

¶33

-----.--::

¶34

¶35

compensation and further contended that this is a mattCr to be verified on factual side by the respondents and sought for liberty of this Court to submit a representation before the respondent No.3 ventilating the grievance of the petitioners and for payment of compensation.

¶36

Having taken note of the contents of the counter affidavit and submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to make representation before the respondent No.3 ventilating their grievances for payment of compensation in respect of the land that is alleged to have been acquired by the respondents within a period of two (O2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order. On submission of such representation by the petitioners, respondent No.3 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three (O3) months from the date of submission of representation by the petitioner.

¶37

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stands closed. No costs.

¶38

To,

¶39

sD/-c. PRAVEEN FUMAR ASSISTANTAEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// l',+r--,sEcrioN oFrrcen

¶40

1 . The Principal Secretarv Revenue Department Secretariat, State of Telanqana.Hvderaba.i'

¶41

3 IIE 3[?f tl' 3"i[1?" i "J'""""JT - ( r n d u s tries ), H vd e ra ba d J.i, ff S,yi:I" " " "

¶42

¶43

One CC to SRI K DURGA PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶44

Two CD Copies

Bs(-

t I

I t

HIGH COURT

DATED:1411212022

ORDER

1 r- r{:
o
/)'f
o O2 TEB ?ul
-r1 .n-<br>c

¶54

WP.No.19598^{of 2019}

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE^{WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

q 4,1,, GtK-

G. Gopichand and 3 others v. State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Gopichand and 3 others v. State of Telangana and 2 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

Purma Papi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Saddela Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana and 11 others

Jillapalli Venkatesham Vs The State of Telangana

B.Y. Patil Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.V.N. Singamohan Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Gaddam Suvarna Rani, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary