Disposed

Smt G.Gangavva v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Apr 2023WP/3887/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition by a landowner under Article 226, the High Court of Telangana disposed of the petition. The petitioner challenged alleged interference with her patta land by respondents construction work. The Court remanded the matter for a stay order but released it after the respondents submitted an affidavit stating that the work had stopped and structural pillars were removed, negating the

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing respondents not to interfere with the patta land of the petitioner in any manner.

Smt G.Gangavva Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3887 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt G.Gangawa, W/o Bhumanna^{Aged about 80 yea} rs Occ.Housewife R/o H No.3-112 Gamjal Village Soan Mandal, Nirmal^District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Land Acquisition Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, Nirmal District, Nirmal

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal Division, Nirmal^District

¶14

The Tahsildar, Soan Mandal, Nirmal Diskict

¶15

The Assistant Engineer Panchayat Raj Department, Nirmal Diskict, Nirmal

¶16

Shaik Mohiuddin, S/o Shaik Abdullah Aged 60^yearsR/o Gamjal Village Soan Mandal' Nirmal District

¶17

...REspoNDENrs Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit^filed therewith,^{the High Court may be} pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction one more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondentsⁱⁿ interfering with the^petitioner constitutional rights and thereby^{trying to construct} double bed room houses in the^petitioner land in Sy No-138^{to an extentof Ac.0-} 39^gts and Sy No.142 to an extent of Ac.1-00^{gts situated Gamjal Village,Soan} Mandal, Nirmal District is arbitrary, illegal^{and unconstilutionaland direct the} respondents to forthwith initiate^Right to^{Fair Compensationand Transparency in} Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation^{and Resettlement Act, 2013 andRules,2014 by} making compensation in respect of the^{constructions(two double bed rooms) that} are made in the^{petitioner land} in^{Sy. No. 138 situated GamjalVillage,Soan} Mandal, Nirmal District and consequently^{directthe Respondents not to interfere} with the petitioner's constitutional^{rights in respectof the subject Iandviz., landin} Sy No.138 to an extent^{of Ac.O-39 gts and Sy No.'142 to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts} situated Gamjal Village,^{Soan Mandal, Nirmal District}

¶18

lA NO: 1 oF 2023

¶19

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 direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's constitutional rights in respect of the land in Sy No.1 38 to an extent of Ac.0-39 gts and Sy No. 142 to an extent of Ac.'1-00 gts srtuated Gamjal Village, Soan Mandal, Nirmal District, pending disposal of the writ petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA

¶21

Counsel for Respondent Nos.^'l to 4: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶22

Counsel for Respondent No. 5: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶23

Counsel for Respondent No. 6: --

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENISUDHEERKUMAR} WRIT PETITION No.3887^of2O23

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard learncd counscl for the^{petitioner, lcarncd} Governrnent Pleader for^{Land Acquisition and learned} Government Pleader for Panchayat^Raj.

¶28

This writ petition is lrled seeking a^u,rit of^mandamusto dcclare thc action of thc respondents in^{interferingwith the} petitioner's rights and thcreby trying to constrLrct clouble bed roorn houses in thc petitioncr's land in Survey^No. 138 to an extent of Ac.O.39 glrntas and Survey No.142 to an extent^of Ac.1.00 guntas, resl-lectively, situated at Gamjal Villagc, Soan Mandal, Nirmal District, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶29

When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for thc petitioner by placing reliance on various photographs l-hat the land of the petitioner is being interfered by the respondents rvithout acqr-rirrng the same and on noticing the samc that the land being claimed by thc petitioner as^patta land and the respondents have commcnccd construction work in the said

¶30

land, this CoLrrt passed an orcler on 1O.O2.2023, u,hich reacls as

¶31

under:

¶32

"...Today whe n the mattcr is taken up, lcarncrl Assrstar_rt Government Plcader for llcvenue placed bclorc thrs Court the writtcn instruclions furnished by I he rcspondentTahsildar and a perusal ol thc same shows tl.rat thc patta land of the petitioner is laken over for constructior-r oI two bed room houses by the respondents.

¶33

Having taken note of thc same, the miltter was passed over requiring the respondents to forthwith stop thc work in thc petitioner's la:rd and thc matter was passed ovcr. When the matter is tal<cn up at 4:OO p.M., learned Assistant Government plcader for Rcvenuc placed bcfore this Court the procecdings bearing No.A/7 | 12023 dated 1O.O2.2023 issued by Lhe responclent-Tahsildar dirccring stoppage of work with an immediate cffcct.

¶34

In these circumstalces, the said proceedings ar.e placed on record and the respondcnts are directed not to intcrfere with the possession of the patta land of tl.re pt:titioner in any marrner until furthcr orders.,,

¶35

Thereafter, respondenr No.4 hled counter atfidavit stating that the pillars that were erec[ed in the iand betonging to the petitioner are directed to be rcmoved and thcrefore the question of^.interfering with the possession of the petitioner or dispossessing him from thc patta land does not arise. The reievant portion from the counter affidavit reads as under:

¶36

".. . Immediately, the work rvas stopped ald instructed the executing agcncy to rcmor.c (03) pillars from the petitioner,s

¶37

¶38

land and work is going on except this there is no any constructions in the^petitioner's land, and no^question of dispossession of the petitioner's land."

¶39

In the light of thc categorical statement made by respondent No.4, the issue that is raised for consideration of this Court does not survivc. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the patta land of the petitioner in any manner. However, this order will not come in the way of the respondents to acquire the subject properq/ without following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

SO/- K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶43

sEcTloN oFFICER

¶44

To,

¶45

, U:rll*.jiilir"jlillt Land Acquisition Deparrment, State of reransana,

¶46

The District C6llector, Nirmal District, Nirmal

¶47

TheRevenue Divisionat Otficer, fitiimai fjiuliion, Nirmal District

¶48

The Tahsitdar, Soan Mandat, ttirmJf Oistri"i'-"'

¶49

Ihe Assistant Enoineer palch-qyat Raj Department, Nirmal District. Nirmal 6. one cc to sri w#eshneaoy Cfr;;;iii"dfilJil,lopuct 7' Two ccs to Gp For Land niquisition, Higr,'coii tix tt of relangana. tourl "-6tate

¶50

"-6tate 8. Two CCs to Gp For pr.nchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court forthe _^{State of Telangana.} TOUTI 9. Two CD CooiesTwo CD Cooies

¶51

Two CD CooiesTwo CD Cooies MBC LS (r.-{/

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2510412023

. rt,
os Jiii{2ut3
i

ORDER

WP.No.3887 ot 2023

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶58

v/t4
l-2

¶59

WITHOUT COSTS

Smt G.Gangavva v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt G.Gangavva 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

P. Ramesh Kumar, Vs Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Muddapati Mallikarjuna Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Yarala Komura Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kuchipudi Kusuma Vs The State of Telangana

J. Gowramma Vs The State of Telangana

Andekar Jahangir Vs The Principal Secretary