Disposed

T. Purushotham Rao v. The Union of India and 9 others

Telangana HC8 Jun 2023WP/32008/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding land acquisition compensation, the High Court directed the Defence Estate Officer to consider the petitioner representation and clarifyations within two months, disposing of the writ without costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.6 to consider representation dated 12.10.2021 with clarification dated 30.03.2022 and pass appropriate orders within two months; miscellaneous petitions quashed.

T. Purushotham Rao Vs The Union of India and 9 others — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITI ON NO: 32008 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

T. Purushotham Rao, S/o. late T. Venkat Rao, Aged 72 years, Occ. Business. Fl/o. H.No.160-1-'14, uurgamma Bhavan, Rudra Road, Lothkunta, Secunderabad - 500015.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi- 1I0010.

¶13

2 The^Drrectorate General, Defence Estates, Ivlinistry of Defence, New Delhi _ 1 10010.

¶14

The General officer commanding - in - chief, He southern command, pune, Maharashtra - 411OOl .

¶15

The General Officer Commanding He Telangana and Andhra Sub_Area, Bollarum, Secunderabad - 5000ib.

¶16

The Principal Director, Defence Estates, Southern Command, Ministry of Defence, Pune - 41 1040.

¶17

The Defence Estate Officer, Telangana and A.p. Circle, City Civil Court Compound, S.D. Road, Secunderalbad _ 500003.

¶18

The-collqctor, Medchar-Markajgiri District, Near Keesara Ring Road, Keesara501 301, Telangana State.

¶19

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri Division, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad - 506094.

¶20

T.he Asst. Director, Survey.and Land Records, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Near Keesara Ring Road, Keesara- 50130.1 , Telangana State.^"

¶21

1 0. The Tahsildar, Alwal tMandal, Medchat-Malkajgiri District, Alwal, Secunderabad - 500010.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances state I in the affidavrt filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a !\ rit, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Nlandamus or any other Writ declaring the inaction of the Respondents 1 to 6 in not paying land acquisition compensation or allotting alternate land in the vicinity of the Petitioners land, despite having taken the Petitioners land, by considering the Application dated 12.10.2021 made by the Petitioner and his family members as being arbrtrary. rlegal, u nco nstitutiona I and in violation of the principles of natural lustice and consequently direct the Respondent No.1 to 6 in partrcular Respondent No 4 to pay compensation or allot alternate land of the same value within the Cantonment limits to the Petitioner and his family mem bers.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶25

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondernts 1 to 6 to pass orders on the representation dated 12.10.2021 made by the Petitioner and his family members thereby initiating land acquisition proceedings under the Riqht to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, fiehabilitation and Resettlement Act to pay compensation or allotting alternate lanri in the Secundr:rabad Cantonment Limits.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. AVINAHS DESAI, SENIOR CONSEL FOR M/S. CHALLA APOORVA REDDY

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 6: GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR(Sr. SC FOR cENTRL GOVT)

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.7 to 10: GP FOR REVENUE

¶29

The Court made the lollowing: ORDER

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.32OOB of 2022

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

I'leard Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel for thc pctitioncr ancl Sri Gacli praveen KLlmar, learned Deputy Solicitor Gcnernl of India for rcspondent Nos. I to 6. 2. lt is the case of thc petitioner that his grandfather was the absolurc owner and possessor of thc land admcasuring Ac.0.27 grs. , equivalent to 3267 Sq. yds. situated in Sy.No.602/A (602 I 1) corresponding to GLR No.259 in Alwal ViJlagc and Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District and the said land has becn in possession and enjoyment of the family of the pCtiLioncr for I-he past mor.e than 9O years and the sarne is claimed to have bcen succcedt:d by the petitioner. It is the furthcr case o[ thc petitiorrcr that the namc o[ the grandfather of the pclitjoner i.e., Mr. T.Kishan Rao rvas recorded as owner and posscssor of thc subject land in the Revenue records. 3. Thc petitioner also placed reliance on the copies of Lhc various Pahanics that are file d along with the Wri t petition. Ho',r,cvcr, resl:ondent No.4 is altcged to have taken pos;session over thc subject land rvithout following any due process ol. law and $,ithout paying anv compenszrtion under the Right to Fair

¶33

Compcnsatir n ancl .i.r, nsltzrrency rn l-etnd Acquisition, I?ehabilitatro I and Rcscrrtrrntcr-rt Act. 20 i 3 (ior shor.t^.r hc Acr, 2013), irr rllegal and :rir3h Itanded malrter and has been continuing ir.t ltosslssiort ol thc subject land . lla ving bcen aggrievcd by rhc said clr.(.ur_nsLances, the pctrtiotier claimed to havc submittcd a represcrrl,rlion, datcd 12.IO.2O2t, to rcspondent No.6, u,lro is lhe custodran rf Llte Dcfence !.statc and marking a copy of the same to scr. ,.:,:tl other author itics, including the Rcvenur: olfic ials oi thc Stellc requesting to pay monctar-}, comperisatior r or to allot , r Liivalent iand in the Secunderabad Contonmcnt L;mits.

¶34

It is Lhr: lurther cas(, ,)i thc petitioncr that r.espondcnl No.6, altcr havir-rg c.nsidercrl th. r.raim of the pctitiorer, addressed a letter No.T&AP, 11Ol/ACe/ti B. rlated 22.O3.2022, sccking certzrin clarifications a,',,cr certifiecr r'''rpics or the crocurne,rs Iiorn the petitioner. Thc petitioncr cllrimcd to have sr-rbmittc<l a dctailed reply in resporlse t,--r tht' s,,ricr lettcr, dated 22.o3.2022, by furnishing all thc clanfications that are sought bv respondent No.6 on 30.O3 2022. Hou,r.r.,t,t.. r.ro further communication is received from respondcnt No (r .l.hercfore, the petitioner claimcd to have addrc,ss,rd a rcrninclr.r. clirtecl I 7.05.2022, (o respondcnt No 6. Having ra ,:d to g.r an-r f(':irlonse from respondc.t No.6, the petitioner. approached this Cor rrr complaining inactron on the part

¶35

of Lhe rcspondents in considering thc representation submitted by thc pctitioner.

¶36

This matter carlier came up on 10.08.2022 and again on 13.09-2022 and tl'rough timc was sought for filing counters, no coLlnLer al'lidavits arc filed by the rcspondents as on date.

¶37

Sri Avinash Dcsar, Iearned Senior Counsel appeanng for thc petitioner, submittcd that the respondents failed to Iile their countcr affidavit evcn aftcr lapsc of more than six monlhs and any lurthcr delay in clisposal of the matter would cause prejudice to the petitioner as thcy werc already dispossessed from their land Iong back and sought indulgence of this Court to consider the Writ [)etiti()n lor disposal by directing respondent No.6 to consider thc reprcscnration, datecl 12.1O.2O21, togeLher r,vith r_hc clarrfications furnished by the petitioner through his letter, datecl 30.O3.2022, and pass appropriate orders thereon within a time to be specified by this Court.

¶38

Sri Gacli Praveen Kumar, lcarned Deputy Solicitor General of India, exprcssed his no objection for disposal of the Writ Petition in the lincs as requcsted by the learned counsel for thc pctitioncr.

¶39

In thc tight ot' thc above, thc Writ Petition is disposecl of dircct ing responden t No.6 to consider the represcntation, dated l2.lO.2()21 , rcacl t.irh clarillcatorl lc[ter, dated 30.O3.2022,

¶40

¶41

submittecl i;r thc ltctrtioni r :urrl pass appropriatc orciers thereon,

¶42

in accordanc,-: u,ith laq, u ill.rin a pcriod of two months from the

¶43

datc of rcccipt of a copv ol tlris ordcr.

¶44

I!{isccll rncous l)eriLions, il'any, pcnding in rhis Writ [,etition,

¶45

shall stand c|rscd. No costs.

¶46

SD/-P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSIST4NT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// ( lD SECTION OFFICER

¶47

To, 1. The Defence Er;tate Officer, Telangana and A.P. Circle, City Civil Court Compound, S.t). Road, Secundcrabad - 500003.

¶48

fwo CCs to Gt'] for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶49

One CC to M/s Challa Apoorva Reddy Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

One CC to Sri.^tiadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia[OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies

TJ SW

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810612023

ORDER

., .r \ E STArA
k
()f-) 2 r lut 2TIl o5
ot
t
t l', t s PAl q$!o

¶56

WP.No.32008 of 2022

¶57

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶58

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶59

Z >z lrtl>3 Scr/ rzra

T. Purushotham Rao v. The Union of India and 9 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Purushotham Rao v. The Union of India and 9 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

Sri Vivekananda Educational Society Vs State of Telangana

M/s Mws- Brp v Vs The Union of India and 2 Others

Tirumalakonda Nagamani Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited (Sccl)

Kolapally Gayathri Devi, Vs The State of Telangana

K. Padmaja Vs Union of India

M/S Narmada Constructions Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.