Disposed

Morampudi Mani v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Feb 2023WA/176/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the Writ Appeal filed by a poultry farm owner against an impugned order directing her to vacate the property within three months. The Court found the farm illegal under Central guidelines due to its location in the tank's full tank level. Acknowledging the expired deadline, the Court granted a further two months for removal.

What did the court decide?

Granted two months from the date of judgment (up to 30.04.2023) to the appellant to remove the poultry farm to comply with the order.

Morampudi Mani Vs The State of Telangana — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹¹ ]

¶2

THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 176 OF 2023

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal prefened against the order dated 03/11/2022 passed in W P No 38993 of 2022 on the file of the High Court. Between:

¶9

Morampudi Mani, Wo.Rambabu, lndian, Aged. 49 years, Occ. Housewife and Agriculture, R/o.H.No.2-60, Main Road, Bharanipadu, Vamsoor, Kandukur, Andhra Pradesh - 507184.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, lrrigation and CAD Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶14

3, The District Collector, Khammam District.

¶15

Dy.Executive Engineer, lrrigation Sub-Division ll, Vemsoor, Khammam District.

¶16

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalluru Division, Khammm District.

¶17

The Tahasildar, Vemsoor Mandal Khammam District. 7. Panchayath Secretary, Bharanipadu village, Vemsoor Mandal Khammam District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶20

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 pleased to Stay the operation of the orders of the learned Single Judge, dated.03-1 1- 2022 made in W.P.No.38993l2O22 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

¶21

Gounsel for the Appellant : MR. G. RAVI CHANDRA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents 1,3,5,6: MR. T. SRIKANTH REDDY,GP FOR REVENUE

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents 2,4: MR. V.SAURABH VERMA, GP FOR !RRIGAT]ON

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent 7: MR. P. KISHORE RAO The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

THEH)@LI]JYI\Iv

AND

TI I B TI I

JUDGMENT, fl,,,,,,,ro,o,,,,,ffinffffi

¶28

Heard J {r. G.Ravi C,randra Sektraa leamed counse I for the appellant; Mr T.Srikanth Reddy, leamed Govemrlr:nr pleader for Revenue representing respondents No.l,3,5 and 6; lvlr. v.saurabl L verma, leamed Assistant GovemrrLt,nr pleader for Irrigarior L represenring respondents No ll ;.nd 4; Mr. P.Kishore Rao, leamed counsel for respondent N,>.2

¶29

This app::al is directed against the order darc<l lD._1.2022 passed by the eamed Single Judge disposing of Vp Nc Jg993 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the petitioner.

¶30

Appellanr had filed the related writ pedrion ;.r;sailing the action of resp cndent No.6 _ Tahsildar, Vemso,tr. Nhndal, Khammam Dis.ricr (briefly^,Tahsildar, hereinafter) ir s;eel.jng to demolish the 5 oultry farm of the appellant ser rrp ir, Iand admeasuring L( .1.23 guntas in Survey No.367/E .*r,ithin the

¶31

¶32

limits of Bharanipadu^-ldandal, Khammam District^(briefly 'subject land' hereinafter).

¶33

It was contended on behalf of the appellant^{before the} leamed Single Judge that the appellant is the owner^and possessor of the subject land; she had set up a poultry^farm therein and has been carrying on the btrsiness of^{poultry rearing} which is an agricuhure allied activiry In this connection,^{she had} obtained no objection dated 25.05.2021 from^Panchapt Secretary Bhannipadu Vilage^(respondent No.7).^{Tatrsildar had} issued nodce dated,07.09.2021 to the appellant^{for a personal} hearing on 30.11.2021 stating that the poultry^farm of^the appellant was advenely affecting capacity of^{the irrigation tank in} the Full Tank kvel (FTL). It was stated that^appellanthad panicipated in the penonal hearing and produced^{the relevant} docurrrents. Besides appellant had availed financial^assistance from National Bank for Agricuhure and Rural^Development (NABARD) and from other sources for setting up the Poultry i { farrn

¶34

¶35

Howev:r, on behalf of the Irrigation Deparrlrcnr, it was

¶36

contended be ore the leamed Single Judge that the pou.tryfarm was set up in rhe IrTL of an irrigation tanlq which is il.tegal.

¶37

After h:aring leamed counsel for the panier; :rnd on due considemtion. ieamed Single Judge disposed of the lnit peririon in the followir s mannen

¶38

F. orn the irutructions of thc le:urLed Gove lmenr Pleader for Irrigarion, it is cleal t rat the lard is situated in FTL., which is dispurl by the p:ritioner. The respondent/panchala has

¶39

issued no objection ceftificare on 25.05.2(.21 l'acilic ted the peritioner to establish a poultry; :r rm. kam :rl counsel for the petitioner submits thrt. at this s:Lge if the poultry farm is demolished, rhe petitic ner will be lirerally on road, ,u he has obtair ed huge loans and invested huge amou.r.ts. Takin: ; into consideration all these facts. baLerr,:rng the ir terest of borh the parties, wrir petition is accorc ingly disposed of directing the petition:r to vacate^/'renrove rhe said poukry farm within rhree rnontl s from today i.e., on or before A3.02.20'.,_3. No or ler as to costs.

I I

Thus, we find that leamed SingleJudge, on rhe basis of the instructions of the leamed Govemment pleader for lrrigation, that the subject land is situated in FTL, though disputed by the appellant, granted three mon*rs, further drne to the appellanr to remove the poukry farm from the subject land. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred.

¶44

kamed Government Pleader for tnigation has taten us to the Environmental Guidelines for poultry Farms issued by the Central Pollution Control Boarid in rhe monrh of August, 2021. In panicular, he has referred to the siting criteria at clause Z. Siting criteria ar clause Z stipulates that new poultry farms set up after issuance of the guidelines should preferably be established hundred meters away from metro water course Iike riven, Iakes, canals and &inking water sources like wells, suruner srorage tanfts eh., in orrder to avoid contamination due to leakages/spillages, if any. Not to speak of maintaining a distance of hundred meters, the poultry farm of the appefly{t is

¶45

¶46

t I

¶47

established riiht in the middle of the FTL.^'Ihis i; 'vholly illegal being contrar y'to rhe above guidelines.

¶48

Thoug, r learned counsel for the appellant s'ubmined that since the pot lrry farm of the appellant is a small cnr: h;wing less than25 thour and poultry there can be no environrrLcntal damage on account c f the poultry farm, from the order ,r{ th,: Ieamed Single Judge ue find that Tahsildar had given pes,>nal hearing to the appella nt and also pemsed the record wherer{::er, he came to the conclu;ion that poultry farm of the appellarn. is <lamaging the FTL of r re concerned tank and therefore, has calJed upon the appellant ro remove the poultry farm frcrr: tlie FTL. karned Sing [r: Judge upon due consideration r]rrlnted rhree months' dme ro the appellant ro remove the said p,>ulr:ry farrn \We do not fi rd any error or infirmiry in the view trilrcn by the Ieamed Single ludge ro waffanr interference.

¶49

L1,. Howevt q as rhe time stipulated for removal ,rf thi: poultry farm had alrerdy expired ot 03.02.2023, we gran: ltnher two

¶50

'-].

¶51

::6

¶52

months' tinrc i.e., upro 30.04.2023 to the appellant ro remove rhe

¶53

poultryfarm from the FTL area.

¶54

Subject to the above, the lVrit Appeal is disposed of. No

¶55

costs.

¶56

As a sequel, miscellaneou petitions, pendlflg if any, stand

¶57

closed

¶58

sor+)uaru.lrrrr-e DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

sEcfloN o#tcen

To,

The Principal. Secretary, Revenue Depa(ment, Secretariat Buildings, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶63

The Principal Secretary , lrrigation and CAD Department, Secretariat Buildings, State of Telangana,Hyderabad.

¶64

The District Collector, Khammam District.

¶65

Dy.Executive Engineer, lrrigation Sub-Division ll, Vemsoor, Khammam District.

¶66

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalluru Division, Khammm District.

¶67

The Tahasildar, Vemsoor Mandal Khammam District.

¶68

Panchayath Secretary, Bharanipadu village, Vemsoor Mandal Khammam District.

¶69

One CC to SRI c RAVI CHANDRA SEKHAR Advocate [OPUC]

¶70

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad[OUT]

¶71

10.Two CCs to GP FOR IRRIGATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad[OUT]

¶72

11.One CC to SRI P. KISHORE RAO, AdvocatelOPuCl

12.Two CD Copies

EDS

HIGH COURT

DATED:091021,2023

JUDGMENT

WA.No.176 of 2023

..:::'fri)<br>I
)J:
1t i'lAB ?tjn
(

¶81

DISPOSING T}IE WRIT APPEAL WITHOI,'T COSTS

¶82

a5
@-fl"'

¶83

tA
.Y

Morampudi Mani v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Morampudi Mani 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The District Judge, Mahabubnagar, Vs Syed Imaduddin

M/S. Polaris Software Lab Ltd. Hyd. Vs Prl. Secy. (Ct) Hyd and 2 Others

State Bank of Hyderabad Vs Dy Commr. of Income Tax Circle 3 (2)

Lifetime Wellness Rx International Ltd. Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre

Dinesh Kumar Tiwari Vs Ms Chitra Mishra, I.A.S

State of T.S. Vs Dr. Neelam Krishna