Disposed

Chand Pasha S/o Mohd Abdul Khader v. The Government of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Oct 2023WP/17569/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner who claimed ownership of land affected by road widening. The court allowed liberty to the petitioner to recover compensation from his vendor before the competent court without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps for recovery of the compensation which was received by his vendor before the competent Court.

Chand Pasha S/o Mohd Abdul Khader Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(SPecial Original J urisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY,^{THETWELFTHDAYOF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEC.V. BHASKAR REDDY}

¶7

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 17569OF 2014}

¶8

Between:

¶9

ChandPashaS/oMohdAbdu|Khader,occBusinessR/oH'No.2-3-133,Sajidpura Siddipet village^{andMandal,l'4edak District'}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Government^{of Telangana,rep by its Princlpal.secretary' Transport'} noio. unJ arlrdings^{Depirtment,'se6retariatBuildings' Hyderabad'}

¶13

2 The Engineerⁱⁿ Chief,^{Roads and Buildings,Erramanzil' Hyderabad'}

¶14

3 The Superintending^{Engineer,Roads and Buildings,Medak at Sangareddy}

¶15

4 The Revenue Divisional^{Offrcer,Siddipet'Medak District'}

¶16

5 The Road Development^{Corporation,Jagityal Division' Karimnagar District'} (R5 is impleaded as^{per court order dated22-7-14in WPMP25509/14)}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under^{Article 226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith'the High Court may be} pleased to issue a wrlt,^{orderor directron more particularly one in the nature of} writ of Mandamus^{declaring the action of the respondents in taking stepsto} widen the road^{from petitionersland in Sy'No435 and 436 of Duddeda village'} Kondap4kaMandal,[/edakDistrictwithoutinitiatinglandacquisitionproceedings t is arbit/ary^{and illegal and violative of Article14' 16' 21 and 300-4 of the}

¶19

Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceedings in the interest of^justice

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 21995 OF 2014l,

¶21

Petition under Section 15.1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Hrgh Court may be pleased to stay of dispossession of the petrtioner from his land in Sy.No.435 and 436 of Duddeda village, Kondapak l,4andal, tt4edak District pending rnrtration of land acquisition proceedings pending disposal of the Writ Petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.GOVIND

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR^REDDY

¶26

WRIT PETITION No. 17569 of2Ol4

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This u,rit petition is lilecl seekrng the^{following relief:}

¶29

".......1o i.ssue a trnt, cr([er ot tlrrectiott ltLore PatlrculQrlg one n the noture of Wnl of^{ll'[Qttd.ttttus<.lt'c'lttttrtgthe action of llrc} respondents in tok]tq stePs to tuidetr^{lhe road} frorrt^petitioner's land in Sg-Nos.435 artd⁴³⁶ of [hrkleda^{Village, Kondapako} Mando| Medak D$lict, tuilltoLtt^{irtiiolilg lat(lQcquisilion} proceedorgs is arb tanl ottd^{leclolatLdtaolotiueof Attictes14,} 16, 21 attd 3OO A^of tltt:^{Co,rslrri.r rlorl ttf htclia artd cot$equenllg} direct tlrc respondetlts lo^{intlnlclontl acquisition proceedtrtgs in} the interest of^{justk'e'ortri} 2rt-s.^^{sl.r./1 ollrer reliefs...."}

¶30

2 The petitioner claims ro^{be the o\lrner and possessor of} land admeasuring Ac.0.25^{guntas in Sy.Nos.435and 436of} Duddeda Village, Kondapal<a^{Mandal, Medak District,} having purchased the^{same from one Mr.Uppala Shivkr.rmar} uide document Nos.4O86^{and4 10 I of 2Ol0dated} 23.08.2OIO, for valuable^{sale consideration. It is the case} of the petitioner that the^{said property was acquiredfor} construction of toll^{plaza by issuingnotification and to that} effect compensation amount^{also has been paid tohis} vendor as his name is^{reflectingin the revenue records. It} is the case of the^{pctitioner that though he is the owner of} the property, his^{name has not been notified under the} draft declaration^{under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition}

¶31

¶32

( vt]It. ., \t, I 75{)9 l0l{

¶33

¶34

Ar:L (for short thc 'Act') issucd in Form 5A datecl 18.06.2O13. As such, hc is not aware al)oLlt the saicl acqr-risition procecditrgs. Therefore, the resporrc[('nts afc liable to pav the compensation amount to the petiti, rner.

¶35

Respondent No.2 has filed a detailed coLlntcr affidavit stating that the Government has proposed for four l.rne road from Hyderabad to Karimnagar and u,orl<s s e re inrtiated ir-r the year 2011 and completecl. Fr-rr-ther, to establish Loll plaza on Rajiv Rahadari at Duddedzr Vrllage o[ Kondapala Mandal for public purpose, the land necdcd lor constructiol-l of toll plaza u,as acquired bv the Gor.crnment as pcr the procedure iaid down under the Act. It is further stated that respondent No.4 has issued Form 5A draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 18.O6.20I 3 and thc name of the vendor of the petitioner is showrr against Sy.Nos.435 and 436. Since the petitioner has not l.akcn an-v steps lor mutation of his name in the revenue records after alleged purchase of land, lhe name of petrtioner,s vendor r.r,as notified and accordingly compensation amount has been determined ancl paid to the vendor of the petitioner. After passing award and acquiring propcrty, thc

¶36

I I I l

¶37

¶38

('vllR. J wP lii69 2014

¶39

samc was handed over^{to the R & BDcpartment duly} conducting^{panchanama on 25.O3.2014and the petitioner} at any point of time^{has not olrjected lor paymentof} compensation to his^{vendor rvhose llamerr as reflected in} the revenue records as Pattadar.

¶40

Learned Assistant Government^{Pleaderfor R &B} Department has submitted^{that the prcsent u'rit petitionis} irled in the^year 20l4^{arftcr completingacquisition} proceedings and this writ^{petition is not maintainableand} the same is liable to^{be dismissed on the ground oi delay} and latches.

¶41

It is the case of the^{pctitionerthat he is the absolute} owner and possessor of^{the subject property, having} purchased the same under^{registered sale deedsuide} Document Nos.4OB6^{and 4101 of 20tO datcd 23.08 2O10,} after paying^{valuable considerationlo his vendor who has} received the compensation^{from the R & B Department'}

¶42

In view of the^{same, this Court deems it appropriate} (o dispose of the writ^{petition,giving liberty to the petitioner} to take appropriate^{steps for recovery of the cornpensation}

----88!

' 'l4Ftr

( vBl{. .r r',1, I :-i69 l{)1.1

¶47

eurount \'hrch \,as received by liis vendor, bclore the compctenr Court.

¶48

With the above observatior-r, the Writ pcrition is disposed of. No costs.

¶49

B. As a scquel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if anl'. shall sttrnd closed.

¶50

SD/- N.SRIHARI

¶51

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶52

//TRUE COPY/I ,, I sEcroN #r,..*

¶53

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, Secretariat Buildings, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶54

The Engrneer in Chief, Roads and Buildings, Erramanzil, Hyderabad.

¶55

The Superintending Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Medak at Sangareddy.

¶56

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, Medak District.

¶57

The Road Development Corporation, Jagityal Division, Karimnagar^District.

¶58

One CC to SRI K.GOVIND Advocate [OPUC]

¶59

Two CCs to GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶60

Two CD Copies. BSK GJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 211012023

ORDER

WP.No.17569 of 2014

1 gE S[-47c
(
q '(
J
() t] q r'i0v 2021 C)
+
* I
3i :rr,r:f'.tt

¶66

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶67

{V<br>O.

Chand Pasha S/o Mohd Abdul Khader v. The Government of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chand Pasha S/o Mohd Abdul Khader v. The Government of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Shyam Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Kurapati Shankar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Puri Bharathi Vs The State of Telangana

Gandra Archana Vs The State of Telangana

Sitapuram Power Limited, Vs Executive Engineer

Perelli Praveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana