Partly allowed

Mohd.Yaseen Khaleel v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Jul 2023WP/583/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a land acquisition award that omitted mandatory solatium calculation under the 2013 Act, the High Court directed the Special Deputy Collector to consider the petitioners' representation within three weeks for payment of 100% solatium and compensation enhancement.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd Respondent to consider the petitioners' representation for payment of 100% solatium and enhancement of compensation within three weeks without any order as to costs.

Mohd.Yaseen Khaleel Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

13252l

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 583 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

'I . Mohd.Yaseen Khaleel, S/o. tVaqbool Pasha, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. H. No. 19-4-439/8, BNK Colony]Tadban, Bahadu'rpura, Hyderabad.

¶9

2 lgqbgol Pasha, S/o.Mohd. Osman, Aged about 69 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 19-4-43918, BNK Colony, Tadban, Bahaduriura, Hyderabad. ...PET|T|ONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal

¶12

{dministration^{Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyd6rabad.}

¶13

1. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Greater Hyderatiad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 a Writ in nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in passing the Award in File No. tu89/ SRDT/2020 on 17.03.2021, in relation to the subject land without calculating or adding solatium as required U/s. 30 (1) of Act 1312013, inspite of repeated requests and representations dated 01 .1O.2021 is challenged in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1),2'l and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents to add Solatium as contemplated U/s. 30 of the Act to the compensation awarded in File A/89/ SRDT/2020 dated 17.03.2021 .

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

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 2nd Respondent to calculate and pay 50 percent of the Solatium to the Petitioners.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. GOKULA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISTION The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON'I ILE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NAI{T)A !1@022

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the ;retitiorrers and learned Go rernment Pleader for Land .Ar:quisition appearing fc r respondents.

¶22

2. The pe:il:ioners approached the Court ser:king the

¶23

prayer as fo lows:

¶24

"l ,r issue a Writ Order or di-ection mcre particLrl ;r'y a Writ in nature of Mandarnus ce(:laring ther ar:ti rr of the Respondents in passing th= Award in File No.A/89/SRDr/2020 on t)'.03.2027 in relation tl the subject land without ,:alculal.ing or adding srlatium as required U/s :;0( 1) :rf Act 73/20l l, inspite of repeated roquests itnd represe rtations dated 01.10.2021 is challe n,;ec in this W it Petition as being arbitrar'/ illeg,,rl ,lnd violativ: rrf Articles 14, 79(l),21 and 300-A of the Constitr tion of India and consequenl.ly direrct the Respon lents to add Solatium as contempl;rtr:d U/s 30 of t re Act to the compensation av,rardel in File Nc.A1B,r/:;RDT/2020 dated 17.03.2021 a rr. pass such ol rr:r suitable order or orders a:i this I'lon'ble Court Tay deem fit and proper un,l(, r the circurns [a nces of the case".

¶25

The qr :lvance of the petitioners is that r sJtite of the represental-io I of the petitioners dated 01.10,20i 1 addressed to the Spec al Deputy Collector, Land Ar;quisi:i,.rn, GHMC,

¶26

¶27

seeking for^payment of 100o/o solatium and enhancement of compensation in respect of house bearing Nos.19-4-424/LlB and 19-4-42413 admeasuring an extent of 10.49 Sy.yards and 44.66 Sq.yards situated at Tadban 'X' Road, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, no action has been initiated till as on date.

¶28

It is the specific case of the^petitioners that the subject lands of the^petitioners have been acquired for^{widening of} road from Aramgarh to Zoo Park and further the^petitioners have given their consent to the GHMC to acquire^their proposed subject lands admeasuring an extent of 10.49 Sy.yards and 44.66 Sq.yards only on^{assurancethat the} compensation will be^paid as^per the^{registration market value} + 100o/o Solatium under the new Act,20t3, dated 01.01.2014. However, no 100o/o Solatium^{and enhancement} of compensation had been done in^respect of^{the petitioners} subject property bearing house^{Nos.19-4-42411/B} and^19-4- 424/3 admeasuring an extent of 10.49 Sy.yards and^44.66 Sq.yards situated at Tadban^{'X'Road, Bahadurpura,} Hyderabad.

¶29

Learned Government^pleader for Land Acquisition submits that the writ^petition could be^{disposed of} directing the Special^{DeDuty Collector} -^{2nd respondent}

¶30

¶31

herein to cc nsider the petitioners representatiorr dated O1.10.2O21 in accordance to law within a rr:as,onable period.

¶32

Bringirrg the said submission on recol,d. flre writ petition is rlisposed of directing the 2'd respcnrJent to consider i:he petitioners representatiotr dated O1.1O.2O21 for payment of lOOo/o Solatiurn and enhanceme rt of compensation in respcrc.t of the petitioners srrbject property bearing Jrouse: Nos.19-4424/L/B a rdr 19-4-424/3 admeasuring an extent of 10.49 Sy.yi rrls and 44.66 Sq.yards sitr.raterl at Tadban 'X' Road, I ahadurpura, Hyderabad, irr ac<:ordarnce to law, within a period of three (03) weeks fronr Ure date of receipt o:^(:opy of this order, duly commu nical:ing the decision to the petitioners. However, there s hall be no order as to ::osts.

¶33

M sct:l rneous petitions, if any, pending ir. t.tis Writ Peli_taen.. sha s tand closed.

¶34

ASS,s rAii?,*[i,fJi{l{ //TRUE coPY/' ,iEcrlbiN or.,;;;

¶35

To, . The sper;ial D 'p rty coflector (LA), Greater Hyder;rbad t\1t rici rar corporation, Hydera bud . 2. One CC to Sr Ook ula R;rma Rao. Advocate lOpUCl 3. Two CCs to C^rr tor Land Acuisition. High Court fo tha Sti re r f Telangana lourl 4. Two CD Cop e ; T.J GJP.,,-',

HIGH COURT

DATED:12107fi023

ORDER

WP.No.583 o12022

e' 1EL4 c :1
? '.- ''\'
/ a) *&
I
]l
$
{i :)
i '-)
<br>H

¶41

DISPOSING CIF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CC STS.

¶42

-1
r) ''
, (t Ior /z
9^) -_t

Mohd.Yaseen Khaleel v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Yaseen Khaleel 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chinvath Kalya Vs State of Tg,Prl.Scy,Revenue,Hyd,and 8

Mohd. Asghar Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

Kamran Mirza Vs State of Telangana

R Mahesh Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Banothu Ramu Nayak, Mahabubabad Dist., and Anr. Vs the State of Ts.,Revenue,Hyd.,and 4 Otrs.

Chindam Swapna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh