Disposed

B. Amarender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its District Collector

Telangana HC8 Dec 2023WP/25787/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought declaration that laying of road through petitioners' land without following procedure was illegal. Court disposed of petition directing District Collector to hold an enquiry to ascertain if the work was on private land or improvement of an existing road.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioners to submit representation to District Collector within 4 weeks; District Collector to hold enquiry and render decision within 3 months.

B. Amarender Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDOY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 25787 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

B.Amarender Reddy, S/o B.Raghava Reddy aged 46^years,

¶9

B.Ravinder Reddy, S/o B.Raghava^{Reddy aged 42 yea$,}

¶10

B.Ralender Reddy, S/o B,Raghava^{Reddy aged 42 yea$,}

¶11

B.Srinivasa Reddy, S/o B.Raghava Reddy aged 39^years,

¶12

5- B.Premsagar Reddy, S/o B-Raghava Reddy aged 35^years,

¶13

B.Venkat Reddy, S/o B.Chandra^{Reddy aged 80 years,}

¶14

B.Linga Reddy, S/o B.Chandra Reddy aged 74^yeats,

¶15

B.Narasimha Reddy, S/o B.Chandra Reddy aged^{71 years,}

¶16

B.Vinay Kumar Reddy, S/o late B.Yadagirr Reddy aged 60^years, All are Rl/o Nalgonda, Nalgonda District

¶17

...PETITIONERS

¶18

AND

¶19

State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its District Collector, Nalgonda

¶20

The Superintending Engineer, AtvlRP Circle ll (Alimineti Madhava Reddy Project) lnigation Department G.V. Gudem.^Nalgonda

¶21

The Executive Engineer AMRP-SLBC (Alimrneti Madhava Reddy,^(Alimineti Madhava Reddy Project - Srisailam Left Bank Canal)^lrrigatron Department, Division No. Vll, Tipparthi Mandal Nalgonda District

¶22

The Executive Engineer Panchayat Department Nalgonda.

¶23

The Tahsildar, Tipparthi Mandal Nalgonda Drslnct.

¶24

b. The District Collector, Nalgonda District

¶25

(Suo Moto impleaded as per C.O. dr.8l12l2023l

¶26

..RESPONDENTS

¶27

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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 4 in laying the road through Petitioners land to an extent of Ac.9.30 gts in S.No. 301 situated al Sarvaram Vrllage H/o Bushireddygudem, Tipparthi lrilandal, Naigonda District and land to an extent of Ac 4.20 gts & Ac.8.26 gts respectively in S.No 203 & 210 situated at Tipparthi, Village, Tipparthi lvlandal, Nalgonda District without following the procedure is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to Article 14 and 3004 of the Constitution of lndia and issued consequenttal directions to the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioners land in any manner wilhout due process of law.

¶28

LA. NQ-2^{qF201!tlWPMPJtq:!1tA3} !E 2013)

¶29

Petition under Section'15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to lay any raod through the Petitroners land to an extent of Ac I30 gts in S.No.30'1 situated at Sarvaram Village H/o B ushireddyg udem, Tipparthi Mandal, Naigonda District and land to an extent of Ac 4 20 gts & Ac.8.26 gts respectively in S.No.203 & 210 situated at Tipparthr, Village, Tipparlhi Mandal, Nalgonda District except with due process of law.

¶30

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WVMP. NO: 3666 OF 2013)

¶31

Between:

¶32

The Superintending Engineer, AMRP Circle ll (Aliminet ltladhava Reddy Project) lrrigation Department G.V. Gudem, Nalgonda

¶33

The Executive Engineer AMRP-SLBC (Alimineti Nladhava Reddy, (Alimineti tr,4adhava Reddy Project - Srisailam Left Bank Canal) lrrigation Department, Division No. Vll, Tipparthi Mandal Nalgonda District.

¶34

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶35

AND

¶36

1 B.Amarender Reddy, S/o B.Raghava Reddy aged 46 years, 2 B Ravrnder Reddy, S/o B.Raghava Reddy aged 42yearc, 3 B Ralender Reddy, S/o B.Raghava Reddy aged 42 years, 4 B Srinivasa Reddy, S/o B.Raghava Reddy aged 39 years,

¶37

¶38

B.Premsagar^{Reddy, S/o B Raghava Reddy aged 35 years'}

¶39

B.Venkat^{Reddy, S/o B-Chandra Reddy aged 80 years'}

¶40

E.Linga^{Reddy,S/o B.Chandra Reddy aged 74 yeas'}

¶41

B.Narasimha^{Reddy' S/o B.Chandra Reddy aged 71 years'}

¶42

B.Vinay^{Kumar Reddy, S/o lateB Yadagiri Reddy aged 60 years'} All are R/o^{Nalgonda, Nalgonda District}

¶43

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶44

State of^{Andhra Pradeshrep.by its District Collector'Nalgonda}

¶45

1 l.TheExecutive^{Engineer Panchayat Department Nalgonda'}

¶46

The Tahsildar,^{Tipparthi Mandal NalgrondaDistrict}

¶47

...RESPONDENTS

¶48

Petition under^{Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} vacate the interim^{order passedinW P M P No'31823 of2013in} W.P.No.25787l2013^{dt: 10.092013'}

¶49

Counsel for^{the Petitioners: SRI P'RAJASEKHAR}

¶50

Counsel for Respondents^{No.1to3 : GP FOR IRRIGATION& COMMAREADEV}

¶51

Counsel forthe^{ResPondentNo'4: GP FORPANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL OEV}

¶52

Counsel for^{the RespondentsNo'5&6: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶53

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶54

,r I i j

¶55

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VI]AYSEN REDDY WRIT PE TION o.257 7 ol 2o13

¶56

ORDER:

¶57

The writ petition is filed to declare the action oF the !-espond.ents l,lo.I to 4 in laving the road through petittoners Iand to an extent of Ac.g.30 guntas in Sy.No.301 situated at sarvaram Village H/o. Bushireddygudem, Tipparthi Mandal, Nalgonda District and land to an extent of Ac.4.2O guntas and Ac,g.26 guntas respectively in Sy.Nos.203 and 210 situated at fippartfri Village, l ipparthi tyandal, Nalgonda District, without following procedure, as being illegal and arbitrary.

¶58

2 [h. ca s(] of t he petitioners is that the la nd admeasuring Ac.9.30 guntas tn Sy.No.301 situated at Sarvaram Village illo. Bushrrcddygudem, Tipparthi Mandal, Nalgonda District and in cxtent of Ac 4.20 guntas and Ac.g.26 guntas respectively in Sy.Nos.2t)L and 210 of the same village was the ancestral property of Late U. Raghava Reddy (father of the petitioners No.1 to 5) and B. Chandra Reddy (father of the petitioners No.6 to 8 & Grand Father of petrtioner No.9). There was family partition and thc p,.:t lronCrs nad bccir enJoytng respective shares in the subJect property. .^r rhe rcqucst- of the petitioners, the land was demarcated and bcundaries wcre fixed by the authorities. The Pattadar pass Book and Title Deeds were issUed by tho

¶59

¶60

respondent No.s in the name of father of the petitioners No.1 to s and also in the individual name of the petitioners No.6 to 9.

¶61

It is stated that in the month of August 2003, when the respondent No.4 made an attempt to lay a road from Tipparthi to Mamidala via Bushireddygudem through the lands of the petitioner, they objected for the same. The petitioners submitted a representation dated 20.10.2003 requesting the respondents not to lay the road through their land without following the process of law. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 did not take any action and the petitioners were under the bonafide impression that the proposal to lay the road through their lands was dropped.

¶62

It is stated that again in Ju|y,2013, the respondents No.1to 4 attempted to lay the road through the lands of the petitioners. On enquiry, it was informed to the petitioners that the road rs being laid on the order/instructions issued by the respondent No.3 by the higher authorities. The petitioners submitted a representation dated 30.07.2013 to the respondents No.3 to 5 not to tay the road without considering their objections and wtthout following the procedure for acquiring the land. It is stated that the petitioners requested the respondent No.4 to furnish the detaits along with copies of order placed to the respondent No.3 for layrng the road through their lands in Sy.No.301 on 2g.0g.2013.

¶63

¶64

lt is stated that the petitioners submitted

¶65

representations/objections to the respondents No.2 and 3 on 29.08.2013 and 30.08.2013. In spite of their objections, the respondents gave evasive and irresponsible reply orally and informeO the petitioners that they are determined to lay the road through the lands of the petitioners. It is submitted that the action of the respondents is without due process of law. The lands are private patta lands. There is no notified panchayat road and maintained by the gram panchayat. As per the Village plans of the both Villages, there was a cart track of 1O feet road passing through the other tands and not through the lands of the petitioners. The alignment of the said cart track appears to have been changed now and the respondents wanted to lay the road through the lands of the petitioners and thereby, the petitroners are approximately losing Ac.1.20 guntas of land in Sy.No.301 and Ac.0.50 of Tipparthi Village. The action of the

¶66

respondents ts high handed and the petitioners are not only suffering monetary loss but also mental agony.

¶67

This Court passed the following interim order dated 054.09.2013. which was extended until further orders by order dared 10.c9.2013:

¶68

"Notrce before adm ssron.

¶69

Learned (jovernment pleader for trrigation and Comrnand Area Development takes notice for R2 and R3,

¶70

¶71

who are SakJ to be laying a road through the petitioners, land, as per para 5 of the affidavit.

¶72

Since the learned Governr nstructions, r sr this writ rJ:J ::iXl;:fj ::J;; List'.

¶73

Meanwhile, the respondents shall not lay the road through the petitioners, land admeasuring Ac.9.30 guntas in Sy.No.301 at Saravaram village H/o. Bushireddygudem, Tipparthi Mandal, Nalgonda District and rn an extent of Ac.4.2O guntas and Ac.g.26 guntas respectiv€ly in Sy.Nos.203 and 210 situated in Tipparthi v illage, Tippa rthi Mandat, Nalgonda District.,,

¶74

The respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit and vacate petition. It is submitted that the department has taken up work for improvement of existing cart track by laying WBM Road from Bushireddygudem H/o. Sarvaram to Distributory D-40 of AMRP (Alimineti Madhava Reddy project) Canal, as part of SCp (Speciat component pran) work for deveropment of existing roads in the AMRP ayacut. The respondent No.3 obtained necessary NOC from the Panchayat Raj Engineering Department (with whom the ownership of the road rests) vide Lr.No.D3/AMR SLBCP dated 11.04.2011 and in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 19.06.2012 issued by the Government. As such, no new road is laid as contended by the petitioners.

¶75

B It is stated that by the time the petitioners approached the respondent No.3 vide representations dated 2g.0g.2013 and

¶76

t !

¶77

-t

¶78

30.08.2013, the improvement work under the existing panchayat Raj road from Bushireddygudem to D-40 was at advance stage. While the representations were under consideration by the concerned authorities, the petitioners approached this Court. The Panchayat Raj Engineering Officials and Revenue Officials informed that thrs road is existing since 30 years with clear side trenches, kalometre stones and all kinds of vehicular movements. On verification in the field and on rnteraction with the locals and villagers, it is establrshed that the road is existing since 30 years.

¶79

It is submitted that the Tahsildar, Tipparthi Mandal. submitted a report to the Drstrict Collector stating that the existing road has been under use by the villagers of Bushireddygudem/Sarvaram and Tipparthi for the past 30 year as cart track and was rmprovcd by the panchayat Raj Engineering Departmcnt aoout l0 years ago. The same was informed to the District Coltector vide Lr.No.F/2506/2013 dated 28.0g.2013 pursuant to a panchanama conducted by him in the presence of the villagers. Therefore, the improvement work to the already existing road for over 30 vears has been taken up by the department and this is not a new road as contended by the petitioners.

¶80

It rs submitted that the department has taken up only rmprovement work to the already extsting panchayat Raj road from

¶81

¶82

Bushireddygudem^{to chainageKm.14.906of D-40 withoutchanglng} any alignment.^{This is the onlydirect and shortest road connecting} Bushireddygudem to^{Tipparthi (MandalHeadQuarters)with} vehicular movements^{for decades. The department has takenup} improvement work to^{the alreadyexisting road and no new road} has been laid. It^{is further submittedthat out of the entirestretch} of 2.5 KMs, the^{work has already been completedto an extent of} 2.3 KMs and^{the work wtthrespect to the remaining area is left} overinviewoftheinterimorderofthisCourt.Noneofthevillagers, except the^{petitioners protestedfor developrnentof road'which} serves the larger^{interestof the public'}

¶83

Learned^{AssistantGovernmentPleader forIrrigation} submitted that^{the present status of the road is not knownand} requested some^{more timefor getting instructions' It is consistently} pleaded by the respondents^{thatimprovementwork was carried out} to the already existing^{Panchayat Raj road for the past 30 years} and no new^{road is formed.However,it is the contention of the} petitioner that road is being^{laidthroughtheirprivatelands'}

¶84

As the^{petitioners had the benefitof the interim order for} almost 10^{years and there is dispute as to whether the subjectroad} over which^{the work is being done existedfromlong time or not,} this Court^{is not inclinedto vacatethe interim order'}

-r

Learned Assistant Government pleader for Irrigation submitted that due process of law will be followinq in laying the remaining road

¶89

Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to submit a detailed representation to the District Collector, Nalgonda _ respondent No.6 ventilating their case that the road is being laid through their private lands within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such representation, being filed, the District Collector, Nalgonda _ respondent No.6 is directed to conduct enquiry by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondents No,2 to 5 ancl render decision as to whether the land of the petjtioners [o an extent of Ac.9.30 guntas in Sy.No.301 situated aI Sarvaram Va age H/o. Bushireddygudem, Tipparthi Mandal. Nalgonda District and land to an extent of Ac.4.2O guntas and Ac.g.26 guntas respectivel,/ in Sy.Nos,203 and 210 situated at ripparthi ViIagc, Trppa(hi Mandar, Nargonda District, is acquired for laying the road or the work undertaken by the respondents No.2 to 4 was to the already existing road. Such exercise shall be compteted by the respondent No.6 within a period of three (3) months from the darte of submrssion of the representation by the pet,rrone,s.

¶90

¶91

The miscellaneous petitions pending. if any, shall stand

¶92

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶93

SD/.C.PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTAN}-RE9dSTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

seciD(orrrcen

To,

1 . The District Collector, State of Andhra^{Pradesh, Nalgonda}

¶98

The Superintending Engineer, AMRP Circle ll^{(Alimineti Madhava Reddy} Project) lrrigation Departrnent G.V. Gudem, Nalgonda

¶99

Thd Executive Engineer,^{A[\4RP-SLBC (Alimineti} Madhava^{Reddy,(Alimineti} Madhava Reddy Project^- Srisailam Left Bank Canal) lrrigation^Department, Division No. Vll, Tipparthi tvlandal Nalgonda District

¶100

The Executive Engineer Panchayat Department Nalgonda, -

¶101

The Tahsildar, Tippa(hi Mandal Nalgonda^District

¶102

One CC to SRI P RAJASEKHAR,^Advocate. [OPUC]

¶103

Two CCs to GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV,^{High Courtfor thb} State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶104

Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT^RAJ A RURAL DEV,^{HighCourt for the} State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶105

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State^{of Telangana.} lourl

¶106

10.Two CD Copies. BSK BS

¶107

HIGH COURT

¶108

DATED:0811212023

¶109

1HE SI4
k
o f(
o 1E ttAB Zrlu
*
t oFs,a TCrrF-O

¶110

ORDER

¶111

WP.No.25787 of²⁰¹³

¶112

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶113

\ 5
e1
,<br>c
h,%

B. Amarender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Amarender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its District Collector

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

Smt. Erra Mutyamma Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Tadeem Balamma Vs The State of Telangana

Rafath Aziz Vs The State of Telangana

Mirza Wajid Ali Baig Vs The State of Telangana

Shakir Jahan Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Lolam Shyam Vs The State of Telangana