Partly allowed

Mudavath Radhakrishna and another v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Telangana HC27 Oct 2022WP/28116/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of a writ petition challenging the unauthorized laying of a drainage pipeline on private agricultural land without acquisition under the LARR Act, 2013, and dismissed the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

Mudavath Radhakrishna and another Vs The State of… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

[³²³⁰ ]

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

¶5

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO:29116 OF 2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

Mudavath Radhakrishna and another, S/o Thulsya, aged about 46 years Occ. Police Department.

¶11

N. Bhadru Naik, S/o Ghansi Ram, aged about 57 years, Occ: Police Department.

¶12

(Both are residents of Medigadda village, Amangal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District)

¶13

,..PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

1- The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Principal Secretary Panchayatraj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶16

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy Diskict,at Hyderabad.

¶17

The Zilla Parishad, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer.

¶18

The Mandal Parishad, Amangal, Ranga Reddy'District

¶19

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Amangal, Ranga Reddy District

¶20

The Sarpanch, Medigadda Gram Panchayat, Amangal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶21

Amarsngh, R/o Medigadda, Medigadda Gram Panchayat, Amangal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents, in particularly the respondents 6 and 7 at the instance of the 5th respondent in laying drainage^pipe line through

¶24

the land beiongs to the petitioners in Sy.Nos.559 and 5li7 in the limits of Medigadda thanda, / \mangal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without consent of the petitioners and w thout any authority, as the respondents have no right to lay drainage pipeline in t rivate patta lands, without acquisition cf the said land under the ,provisions of th: Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabili ation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequer tial direction to the 2nd respondent to take action on the representation of the petitioners dated 14.06.2022 acknowleclged on 14.06.2022 to remove the illegall / laid drain in the lands, making it unfit fcr cultrvation.

¶25

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i' support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respo rdent to take action on the representalion of the petitioners daled 14.6.2022 ack.owledged on 14.6.2022 to remove the llegally laid drain in the lands of the p( titioners situated in Sy.Nos.559 and i 57 in the limits of Medigadda thanda, , hangal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without the consent of the petitioners an I without any authority or in the alternat ve acquire the land under the provisionr of Act,2013 and pay compensation to the petitioners for illegally laying the d'ainage pipeline in the lands, making t unfit for cultivation, pending disposal of 'he Writ Petition.

¶27

Counsel for the Peti :oner : SRl. S S R MURTHY

¶28

Counsel for the Res rondent No.1 : GP FOR PANCHAYAI' Il,.J RTJRAL DEV

¶29

Counsel for the Res condent No.2 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 : SRI C KALYAN Rl,Cr, SC FOR ZPP,MPP,GPS

¶31

Counsel for the Res pondent No.7 :NONE APPEARED

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶34

WRIT PETITION No. 2A716 of 2022

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

The rvrit petition is lilcd seeking the follos'ing relief:

¶37

".... to issue a Writ of Mandamus or arly other appropriatc Writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in particuiarly the respondents 6 and 7 at the instance of the Sth rcspondent in taying drainage pipe line through the land belongs to thc petitioners in Sy.Nos.559 and 557 in the limits of Medigadda thanda, Amangal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without consent of the petitioners and without any authority as the respondents have no right to lay drainage pipeline in private patta lands without acquisition of the said land under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation alld Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the 2"d respondent to take action on the representation of the petitioners dated 14.06.2022 acknowledged on 14.O6.2022 to remove the illegally laid drain in the la-nds, making it unlit for cultivation and ....".

¶38

Mr. S.S.R.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners filed a Ietter dated 23.1O.2022 before the Registry seeking permission of this court to withdraw the present writ petition.

¶39

Permission is accorded.

¶40

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶41

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition

¶43

shall stand closed. SD,.P.P^{AUMANABHA RE} R AS^SISTANTREGIS ,,TRUE^COPY,, SECTION^OFFICER

¶44

To,

¶45

ltu:,"sii;1:Fi"Lsf#[qHifltri'e5"J^t"J'"Hshc'u^r'r'ihe

I I

i II

3- Trvo CCs to G⁾ FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Stat,: of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OJT]

¶51

One CC to SR C KALYAN RAO, SC FOR ZPP, MPP,GPS.[OPUC]

¶52

Two CD Copie s

¶53

One Spare Co ry

SB SB

2a\x

t I

HIGH COUR'T

DATED:2711012022

ORDER

STAT€ n+:<br>I n N'i'l 1$]1
.i. $

¶61

WP.No.281' 6 of 2022

¶62

DISMISSIN 3 THE WRIT PETITION
AS WITHDITAWN WITHOUT COSTS
r\r-"
's.$
'9

Mudavath Radhakrishna and another v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mudavath Radhakrishna and another 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

M/s Lamd Mark Developers Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Surya Rao Voora Vs State of Telangana

Sri Mekala Ramakrishnudu Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Surabhi Farms Vs The State of Telengana

T. Madaru Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Omer Hussain Barzaiq Vs The State of Telangana