Dismissed

Patnam Balaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jul 2023WP/6026/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners under Article 226 sought directions for an enquiry into alleged illegal compensation payments during land acquisition. The Court dismissed the writ petition and directed petitioners to make a fresh written representation to the Vigilance and Revenue authorities with supporting documents.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to make a fresh representation to Respondents 3 and 4 within two weeks; Respondents to consider and initiate action within three weeks.

Patnam Balaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132521

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE^{TENTH DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{MRS JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO^{N NO: 5026 OF 2022}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Patnam Balaiah,^{S/o Late Durgaiah, Aged about 49 years' agriculture'} Resident of H. No.^1-2

¶9

2 rj;b;#-Ramesn,^{slo D. snankaraiah,Aged about. 32 years, agriculture,} Resident of H. No.^1-51

¶10

e Hrrrri i".giiuh,^{slo Rasula Ramaiah, Agedabout 47 years, agriculture,} Resident of H. No.^2-19

¶11

4 V;16;;m Shetar^{Reddy, S/o Yellaram Chenna Reddy, Aged about43 years'} aoriculture. Resident of H.^{No. 4-56/1}

¶12

5 ,s'il;;k'i;i"";:-s/; Shrk^{Sathar Miva, Aged about 34 vears' agriculture'} hesident of H.^{No. 3-60}

¶13

(AllareresidentsofSiddapuraVillage,KothurMandal,RangaReddyDistrict)

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

The State of^{Telangana' Rep.by its Principal Secretary, General} Ad m inistration^{Department,Secretariat,tlyderaLad'}

¶17

2 Th; T;6"sinrViijitance^{iommission,Rep by Telangana Vigilance} Commisstoner. HYderabad

¶18

: ihe Vioilance Officer and^{Enforcement Officer, Adarsh Nagar,Hyderabad.} .

¶19

; iil; Dl;i;i"i CottJ"tot^{Ranga Reddv Lakadi-ka-pool,uyq"'gPq9} 5. The Revenue^{Divisional Officer, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy ulstncl'} 6 rn" rir,iilojr, Kothur,^{Kothur Mandal, Ranga Reddy-Districl} .

¶20

7 Raieshwari, Revenue^{Divisional Officer, Shadnagar' RanggKe.ddyurslrrcl} b. Hri"rrr,iJhsrldar,^{Kothur KothurMandal,Ranga ReddyPi:t'itt,,,^,-} - 5 vrJo" srt;i"h^{slo Aged Major, Sarpanch, R/o SiddapurVillage'Kothur} Mandal Ranga^{ReddY District.}

¶21

rO vaoJ. irrasihma^{r,tlo Valde galaiah, Rio. Siddapur Village'Kothur Mandal} Ranqa Reddv District

¶22

1 1 v;;X;r'il;rna'Cirsne,^{Mining Rep by its Proprietor Jairam} t"a9.y' ASg9 ' ' rr;j;;;'Brti"ui.. nlo -SiJoapu, Villag'e, Kothut Mandal, Ranga Reddv District'

¶23

(RR 9 ro 1"1 are impleaded^{as perCourt Order dt 10t0312022in lA No'} 212022)

¶24

"'RESP.NDENTS

¶25

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circirristances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith' the High Courtmay be}

¶26

pleased to issue a wflt order or dire(lron more particularly one in the nature of wnt of mandamus. a. To direct The Vigilance Officer and Enforcement Officer, the 3rd respondent herern, to cause prelim nary enquiry on our complaint dated^.16-08- 2021 . b To direct the Drstrict Collector, Ranga Reddy, 4th respondent herein, to conduct detailed enquiry wrth regard to payment of compensation to illegal and ineligible people with regard to acqursition of Iand, in Sy. No. 2SZ, 278 and 361 total an extent of 4c.240-16 Gts. with specrfic regard to role of respondent no. g and 9 c. To direct District C:llector. Ranga Reddy, 4th respondent herein, to provide copy of proceedings of Award passed under Act 30 of 2013 or any other proceeding through which said lands have been taken over by Government from us and others.

¶27

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶28

Petitron under section 1 51 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supoort of the petrtron the High court may be pleased to direct The Viglilance Officer and Enforcenrent Officer, the 3rd respondent herein, to dispose of our complaint dated 16-08,2021

¶29

Cou nsel for the Petitioners: SRI R.R.KALYAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI SAMPATH P. REDDY Cou nsel for the Respondent Nos.4 TO 6: GP FOR REVENUE Cou nsel for the Respondent Nos.7 TO '11: --

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.6O26 OF 2O22

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

¶35

The petitioners approached the Court seeking the prayer as follows:

¶36

"To issue a writ, order or direction more

¶37

pariicularly one in the nature cF writ of mandamus: a. To direct the Vigilance Officer & Enforcement Officer, the 3'd respondent herein, to cause preliminary enquiry on our complaint dated 16.08.2021 ;

¶38

b. To direct the District Collector, Ranga Redcly, 4th respondent herein, to conduct detailed enquiry with regard to paymsnl eJ compensation to illegal and in-eligible people with regard to acquisition of land in Sy.No.252, 278 and 361 total an extent of Ac.240-16 Gts with specific regard to role of respondent No.B and 9;

¶39

c. To direct District Collector, Ranga Reddy, 4th respondent herein, to provide copy of proceedings of Award passed under Act 30 of 2013 or any other proceeding through which said lands have been taken over by Gcvernment from us and others;

¶40

d. To grant any other relief or reliefs in the interest of^justice. "

¶41

¶42

:i. -l-he counter aff3da vit fiied by respondent' No,3 anc! irr p4lticular paragraplr No.J of lhe saicl . corrnter affidavil: rearls as unrier:

¶43

"It is furtlrer respectfullf submittecl that as per the Regional Vigilance iind Enforcement Office, Hyderabad Rural Unit the'respondent No.3 herein dicl not receive the allegdcir cornplaint dated :^'::, L6.08.2O21 of the petitioners, hence the questioli Cf conducting preliminary enquily tloes not arise. Th e res no n d e n t N o. grcrern- iEA- rllrty- trS1S-effte-el ls tea cl v to conduct en ut U oil th petitipners r ntation if the oetitioners approach this resoon dent No.3 alono with representa tion and rel 4 ant documents. It is further submitted that the entire averments lriade in the present writ petition are re!ated to the Fleuenue authorities concerned i.e., respondent No.4 t,,r 8."

¶44

Tht+ pelitioner has filed reply affidavit to the counter affidavit arrd in particular referred to paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit in which the petitioners specifically contend that the petitioners had seii a compiaint daLed 16.08.2021 to the 3'd i-espondent l-hrough regi:riered post with acknowledgment due and the said postai receipt had also been filed as a material dccument in support oi the affidavit filed in the present writ petition.

sN,l

I I

Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances, and the averments made in para 3 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 (referred to and extracted above) the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to make a fresh representation to the 3'd and 4th respondents with all the relevant documents, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, explaining the petitioners' grievance as put-forth in their complaint dated L6.O8.ZO2L, which pertains to acquisition of assigned land from landless poor in Sy.Nos.252 (L22-OO), 27a(66-OO), 361(142-OO) of Siddapur Village, Kothur Mandal, Rangareddy District and for payment of compensation to the actual possessors irrespective of patta rights. The respondent Nos.3 and 4, soon after receipt of the said representation from the petitioners, are directed to consider the said petitioners, representation, in accordance to law, and initiate appropriate action, within a period of three (O3) weeks thereafter. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

Miscellaneous pe1-i!ioirs, if .rny, pendin(l ii^i this &t-ii

¶51

L'etition. shai stand close11., ,

¶52

¶53

SD/.MOHD. SANAULLAH^ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTF,AR

//rRUE coPY/'

,EcrloN o%tcea

1 The Pr-incipal Secretary. Genera^{Administration Department' Secretariat,} Hvderabad. Stale of Telangana

¶58

2 Tire Telangana',/igilance Clomnrssioner,^{Telangana Vigilance Commission,} Hyderabad.

¶59

3 The Vigilance Officer and Enforcement^{Officer,Adarsh.Nagar, Hyderabad-}

¶60

4 The Di;trict Collector, Ranga Reddy,^{Lakadi-ka-pool,Hydegba{}

¶61

The Revenue Divisional Office:,^{Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶62

6 The Tahsildar, Kothur, Kothur^{l/andal, Ranga Reddy District}

¶63

7 One CC to SRI R.R.KALYAN,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶64

8 Two CCs to GP FOR^{N4CPIADIVN& URBAN DEV, High Court for the State} of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶65

9 Two CC; to GP FOR REVEN[lE^{HighCourt for the State of Telangana, at} Hyderabad IOUT]

¶66

lorp-ne cc to SRI SAMPATH P^{REDDY, Advocate} [OPUCI 1 l Two CD Copies

PSK

I]S

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:10t0il2023

{t tE g ra r/:'
: ,':
B l\J. 2m C)
)L
t
,:i

¶73

ORDER

¶74

WP.No.6026 of 2022

¶75

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶76

v'acl
J

Patnam Balaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patnam Balaiah 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

Chukka Krishna Goud Vs The State cf Telangana

K. Somavathi Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Madanu Mariamma Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Kolkonda Anutej Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Ruknuddin Ghouri Vs The State of Telangana

Karrem Narayana Vs The State of Telangana