Disposed

Sri.B.Janardhan Reddy, v. The State of Telangana, Represented by Secretary

Telangana HC14 Dec 2023WP/37166/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging respondent encroachment on petitioners' land alleged to be illegally occupied without land acquisition proceedings. The Court directed respondents refraining from interference while directing petitioners to seek boundary fixation.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to interfere with land; petitioners directed to make application for boundary fixation.

Sri.B.Janardhan Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[^32e6 ]

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V.^{BHASKAR REDDY}

¶7

WRIT P ETITION NO: 37166 OF 20'14

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri.B.Janardhan Reddy,, S/o Sri.B.Narayana^{Reddy, aged about 60.years,} Occupation Agriculture, PJo 3-4-13121,^{Shantiniketan,Bollarum,} Secunderabad-10.

¶10

Sri.B.Sudharshan Reddy,, S/o Sri.B.Narayana^{Reddy, aged about 64,years,} Occupation Agriculture,' R/o H.No.3-4-10/48,^{Brindavan Enclave,Bollarum,} Secunderabad-'10.

¶11

Smt.B.Eshwaramma,, W/o Sri.B.Narayana^{Reddy,aged about 83 years'} Occupation Housewife, Fl/o^{H.No.3-4-1O147,Brindavan Enclave,Bollarum,} secunderabad-10

¶12

...pETrroNERs

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Represented by^{Secretary, ( Roadsand Buildings} Department), Hyderabad

¶15

Thi Executive Engineer. R & B City Road^{Division,, Goshamahal,Hyderabad.} 3. The Deputy Comriissioner,, Great6r^{Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Alwal} Circle-16, Alwal, R.R.District.

¶16

...REspoNDENrs

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Courtmay be} pleased to pass a writ of Mandamus declaring the^{action of the respondentsin} trying to interfere or occupy the^{lands of the petitioners in Sy.No.77(paft) and 7412} of Turkapally village, Malkajgiri Mandal,^{R.R.District admeasuring 0-29 guntas in} total without taking any steps under the^{provisionsof the land AcquisitionAct as} illegal, arbitrary, and against the spirit^{of the constitution of lndia}

¶18

¶19

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP . NO: 46526 OF 20141

¶21

Petltion under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to grant to direct the respondents their agents, contractors, emproyees from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners properties in sy.No.77 (part) and 74/2 ot rurkapally village, Matkajgiri Mandal, R.R.District admeasuring 0-29 guntas in totar pending disposar of the writ petition in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt R. RANGANATHAN

¶22

Counsel for Respondents: Gp FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS

¶23

Counsel for Respondent No. 3: SRI CHATLA MADHU SC FOR GHMC

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.37156 of 2Ol4

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in trying to interfere with the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.O-29 guntas in Survey Nos.77 (part) and 74 /2, situated at Turkapally Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without taking any steps under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act, 1894'), as arbitrary and illegal.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Perused the record.

¶30

It is the case of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners and possessors of land to an extent of Acs.6-00 guntas in Survey No.74/2 and out of which, an extent of Ac.0.23 guntas in Survey No.74 and land to an extent of Ac.0-32 guntas in Survey No.77, situated at Turkapally Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as part of the land was acquired for laying an Intermediate Ring Road between Kompally and Bolarum, in the year 1994 by respondent No.1 through the Special Deputy Collector (L.A) Industries, Ranga Reddy District by

¶31

,r*.f-* -.. -

¶32

--F._-;*'-d

¶33

¶34

cv6,.. wp 17166 2014

¶35

issuing proceedings, dated 13.03.1997 and also paid compensation. Being not satisfied with the same, the petitioners approached the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, seeking enhalcement of compensation. The Iearned Principal Senior Civil Judge, by an order, dated 18.O2.2OO9 enhanced the compensation. It is further case of the petitioners that the matter is still pending before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for payment of enhanced compensation. In the meanwhile, the petitioners entered into Development Agreement with a builder for an extent of Acs.S-OO guntas in Survey No.74/2leaving behind an extent of Ac.O- 17 guntas, which is in possession of the petitioners.

¶36

The case of the petitioners is that even after acquiring the land to an extent of Ac.O.23 guntas in Survey No.74 and land to an extent of Ac.O-32 guntas in Survey No.77, situated at Turkapally Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without determining the boundaries of the remaining extent of land available in the hands of the petitioners, the respondents are trying to encroach further extent of Iand without issuing aly notification and such action on the part of the respondents is vioiative of fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 ar^d 300-A of the Constitution of India.

CVBR,J wp_37166_2014

I I

I I

Learned Assistant Government^{Pleaderfor Roadsand} Building appearing for respondent^{Nos.1 and} 2^{relying on para-} wise remarks furnished vide Lr.No.ECl/AB /2014 /^{751 17a2, dated} 04.12.2014, would submit that^{the respondentsare layingroad} within the road boundaries and they are^{not touching the landsof} the petitioners. Learned counsel further^{submittedthatexcept} paying enhanced compensation for the^{lands already acquired by} the respondents for formation^{of Intermediate RingRoad,they are} not interfering with the other^lands of^{the petitioners,in any} manner.

¶43

The respondents have^{specihcallydenied intheir} counter-affrdavit that they are^{interfering with the land of the} petitioners in any manner, except^{paying enhanced compensation} as determined by the learned Senior^{Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy} District in O.P.No.251 of 20O1,^{dated 78-02.2O09.The case of the} petitioners is that the respondents^{are interfering with their land} without initiating land acquisition^{proceedings for the balance} extent of land to ar extent of Ac.O-17 guntas, which according to^{themis in their possession'} The petitioners, instead of taking appropriate^{recourse by hling an} application for conducting survey^{and demarcation of the land} and to hx boundaries for the acquired^{land and remainingextent} of land alleged to be in their^{possession, filed the present writ}

¶44

¶45

CV8R, wP _31 \66 _2Ot4

¶46

'.(

¶47

petition stating that the respondents are encroaching the land of the petitioners.

¶48

In the said circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents not to interfere with the land of the petitioners. However, petitioners are directed to make appropriate application seeking to hx boundaries for the land acquired for the purpose of laying road and the balance extent of land claimed to be in their possession and after determining the boundaries, classification of nature of land and after localization of the land, if the land of the petitioners is required / utllized, by the respondents for the purpose of laying additional road, the respondents shall initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2O13.

¶49

With the above observations, the Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition

¶51

shall stand closed

¶52

S D/- N. CHANDRA^{SEKHAR RAO} ASSISTANT EGIS AR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 e Secretary,^{( Roads and Buildings Department), State of Telangana'} H erabad

¶53