Disposed

Kandula Laxmaiah v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Jul 2023WP/5518/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed against the State of Telangana and irrigation officials. The petitioner sought removal of a temporary road on his land or land acquisition under RFLARR Act, 2013. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's dated 02.12.2016 representation and initiate appropriate action within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.12.2016 and initiate appropriate action within three weeks.

Kandula Laxmaiah Vs State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

|³²⁵²¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 5518 OF 2017

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kandula Laxmaiah, S/o.Late Ramaiah, Aged 47 years, Occ:Cultivation, Rl/o.Mulkala Village, Hazipuir Mandal, Mancherial District. Stat;) of Telangana.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, lrriqation and Command Area Development Department Secretariat, Saifabad,^" Hyderabad.

¶13

Superintending Engineer, lrrigation and Command Area Development Department, Mancherial, Adilabad District.

¶14

Executive ln-gi1egr lrrigation and Command Area Development Department, Mancherial, Adilabad District.

¶15

Assistant Engineer, Rallivagu Project, Mancherial, Adilabad District.

¶16

Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District.

¶17

Tahsildar, Hazipur Mandal, Mancherial, Adilabad District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents particularly that of 3rd respondent in not considering the petitioner's representation dated 02.12.2016 submitted requesting them to remove the temporary road laid through the petitioner land situated in Survey No.229l(+ of [/ulkalla Village, Hazipur Mandal, Mancherial District or alternatively to initiate land acquisition proceedings under the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

¶20

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and pay him compensation and other eligible Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefits available under law for his said land that was utilized for formation of the road, as illegal, irregular, irrational and amounts to non discharge of legal obligation conferred on the Respondents under the provisions of said statute and offends articles 14,21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents, either to remove the said road or alternatively pay the petitioner's compensation and other rehabilitation and resettlement benefits by initiating Land acquisition proceedings in respect of his said land covered by such Road.

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO:6732 OF 20171

¶22

Petition under Section^'l 51 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 to consider and decide the petitioner's representation daled O2-12-20'16 submitted for removal of the road temporarily formed through his land situated in Survey No.229l <9 of Mutkalla Village, Hazipur Mandal, Mancherial District or alternatively initiate Land acquisition proceedings in respect of his said land covered by such Road under the provisions of the said statute and pay him compensation and other rehabilitation and resetflement benefits as provided under law, pending disposal of the main writ petation.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner : SR! R MADHAVI LATHA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR IRRIGATION

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

HON'BLE^MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA} WRIT PETITION No.5518^{of 2O17}

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard learned counset for^{the petitioner, learned} Government Pleader for Irrigation^{appearing for} respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned^{Government Pleader} for Land Acquisition appearing^{for respondentNos's} and 6.

¶29

2 The petitioner approached the^{Court seekingthe} prayer as follows:

¶30

"To issue a writ order or direction^more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF^MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents^{particularly that of} 3rd respondent in not considering^{the petitioners} representation dated 02.t2.2016^{submittedrequesting} them to remove the temporary^{road laid through the} petitioner land situated in Survey No.^{229lA of Mulkalla} Village, Hazipur Mandal, Manchirial^{District or} alternatively to initiate land acquisition^proceedings under the^provisions of The Right^{to Fair Compensation} and Transparency in Land Acquisition,^{Rehabilitation and} Resettlement Act, 2013 and^{pay him compensation and} other eligible Rehabilitation and^{ResettlementbeneFits} available under^I aw for his^{said land that was utilized for}

¶31

¶32

formation of the road as illegal irregular irrational and amounts to non discharge of legal obligation conferred on the Respondents irncl6;1;-.," provisions of said statute and offerds artictes 7,+, 2t and 300_A of Constitution of India an,l consequently direct the respondents either to remove the said road or alternatively pay the petitioner's compensa[ion and other rehabilitation and resettlenlent benefits by initiating Land acquisition proceedings in respect of his Said land covered by such Road ancl pass such other order or orders may deem fit and prop,:r in the circumstances of the case.,,

¶33

The gri rvance ot the petitioner is that vide representation dated A).D.2016, addressed to the respondents he,rein, the petrtioner requested respondents to remove the t€mporar)/ road laid through petitioner,s land situated in Sy.lrJo.229,/A of Mulkalla Village, HAzipur Mandal, Mancherial Distr-ict and in spir e of the said representation, the respondents did not inrtiate any action to address the grievance of the petitioner till as on date.

¶34

it is reprt:sented by learned Government pleader that the writ petit on could be disposed of directing the respondents to :onSider the representation of the petitioner,

¶35

¶36

dated^{02.12-2Ot6, inaccordancewith law and pass} appropriate^{orders, within a reasonableperiod'}

¶37

In^{view of the above submission' the writ petitionis} disposed^{ofdirecting the respondents toconsider the} representation^{of the petitioner' dated 02'12'2016'in} accordancetolawandinitiateappropriateaCtionwithina period of three^{(03) weeksfrom the date of receipt of copy of} this order.^{However,thereshall be no order as to costs'}

¶38

Miscellaneous Petitions,^if any, Pending^{in this Wrlt}

¶39

Petition,^{shall stand closed'}

¶40

/irRuEcoPY//^ASS*rd$::]:I

¶41

To, ,H?",il["J',"?'$ff :1fl2^,"?3[1]lli"'Ji[3"':?"',T:"&"#''Ti"$:"f

¶42

rmPksg,#Fg;:'tilrtfril::

¶43

iffffi[s".fu.,6+mr+m##attk'','ri:::":"'reanganaa'1 BSK GJP \y

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610712023

ORDER

WP.No.5518 of 2017

1HE S l'Ar 6
o
r
q
ocJ 2 6 JIJL 2$Z]
. /'!-q ",4 rr 'i ar.'
-.-:::=_ .i'

¶49

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

<br>"J
3D
'4) ^\ I 1 ,9

Kandula Laxmaiah v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandula Laxmaiah v. 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

V. Narshima Rao Vs The State Of Telangana

DrJ.M. Gurunath Vs The State Of Telangana

Shaik Mohammad Ali , Mohammad Ali Vs The State of Telangana and 16 others

Maremreddy Prathap Reddy and 12 others Vs The State of Telanana and 4 others

Smt. G. Aruna Vs The Joint Collector

P. Srisailam Vs The State of Telangana