Allowed

Jai Prakash Singh v. The Special Deputy Collector

Telangana HC20 Nov 2024WA/1312/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal against a Single Judge order that declined to interfere with a 2006 land acquisition award and merely permitted a representation seeking compensation. The Division Bench held reasons were required before declining to interfere with the challenged award, set aside the impugned order, restored the writ petition for fresh expeditious decision without expressing any opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 05.09.2024 in W.P.No.15789 of 2009 set aside; writ petition restored to file for decision preferably within sixty days; no costs.

Jai Prakash Singh Vs The Special Deputy Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³⁴¹¹ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1 312 0F 2024

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause i 5 of the Letters patent preferred against the order dated 05-09-2024 in W.P.No.15789 of 2009 on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Jai Prakash Singh, S/o.B.p. Singh, Aged about 48 years, Occ.Advocate, R:/o.H.No.B-9-148-, Midhani Enctav6,'Orritu Nigii-Cofony, p.O.kJn;il;;r;;: Ranga Reddy District - 500 058.

¶11

satya Prakash singh, s/o.B.p. singh, Aged about 42 years. occ.Enoineer. R/o. H. No.B-9- 1 48, Mid hani Encrave,"Dhatl-rurtii boionv, p. d. fr",il;X;;s h ' Ranga Reddy District - 500 058.

¶12

....,PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The Special Deputy Co-!]ector, Land Acquisition, (lndustries) Government of I etangana, Iankbund Road, Hyderabad.

¶15

2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Transport, Roads and B uildings Depa rtment, Secreta riat B uitd ings, Sa ifabad, HyaeraOiO-^-

¶16

.1 5_"l9tr.n,C^"1tre I marat( RCI ). Research and Development Organisation, M_rnlstry^{ot lJetence, Governmentof lndia, p.O.} Vignan Kanchi, Hyderabad 69 Rep. by its Director.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶18

I.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶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 possesslon of the petitioners of the Plot Nos.2 and 3 in sy.Nos.35 part and 40, Roshandowla vlllage, Balapur Mandal, R.R.District, pending disposal of the writ appeal.

¶20

¶21

Counsel for Appellants : SRI VEDULA^{SRINIVAS, SENIORCOUNSELFOR} Ms. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA

¶22

counsel for Respondent No.1^{: sRl E.RAMESHCHANDRAGOUD, GP FOR} LAND ACQUISITION

¶23

Counsel for Respondent No.2 : SRI^{M.VIGNESWAR REDDY,G.PFOR ROADS} AND BUILDINGS

¶24

Counsel for Respondent No.3^{: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY} SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶25

The Court made the following^{JUDGMENT: -}

¶26

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICESUJOYPAUL}

¶29

¶30

AND

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICENAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶32

w .A.No.1312 of 2024

¶33

JT DGMENT(per Hon'ble^SP,J)

¶34

Sri Vedula Srinivas,^{learned Senior Counsel representing} Ms. Vedula Chitralekha,^{learned counselfor the appellants, Sri E'} Ramesh Chandra Goud,^{learned Government Pleaderfor Land} Acquisition, for respondent^{No. 1, Sri M. Vigneswar Reddy,learned} Government Pleader^{for Roads and Building,for respondentNo'2} and Sri Gadi^{PraveenKumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of} India, for respondent^No.3

¶35

With the consent linallY^heard.

¶36

This intra-court appeal^{takes exception to the order dated} O5.OT.2O24^passed by^{a learned SingleJudgeof this Courtin} W.P.No.15789 of 2OO9.

¶37

The bone of contention of^{learnedSenior Counselfor the} appellants is that the^{prayer clause of tJle writ affrdavit makes it} crystal clear that challenge^{was specificallymounted to the award} dated pi.10.2006.^In the^{irnpugned order, learnedSingleJudge} n"".rdt assigned any^{reason as to why award is not to be interfered} with. Instead, learned Single Judge^{permitted the appellantsto} prefer a representation for the^{purpose of grant of compensation'} Thus, it is argued that^{if award was subject matter of challenge, the}

¶38

¶39

¶40

adjudication should have taken place on the validity of the award. The Writ Petition was not frled for getting compensation alone. In fact, the award was called in question by assigaing reasons and grounds in the writ affidavit.

¶41

Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has supported the impugned order and urged that in paragraph No.6 of the impugned order, the appellants were directed to file a fresh representation along with relevant documents to establish their title.

¶42

In the opinion of this Court, the argument advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has substantial force. A conjoint reading of paragraph Nos.S & 6 of the impugned order of learned Single Judge shows that no reasons are assigned as to why interference was declined on the award. If award was subject matter of challenge, the Court was obliged to assign reasons as to why award should not be interfered with. In the absence of that reason, the impugned order cannot be countenanced. The remedy of preferring representation, by no stretch of imagination, can address the grievance of the appellants against the award.

¶43

Resultantly, the impugned order dated 05.09 .2024 in W.P.No. 15789 of 2OO9 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The Writ Appeal is disposed of. The Writ petition is restored to its original number. Since it is a 2OO9 matter, learned Single Judge is requested to decide the matter expeditiously,

¶44

¶45

preferably, within sixty days. It is made^clearthat this Court^has

¶46

not expressed any opinion^on the merits^{ofthecase.No costs.}

¶47

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{petitions pending, if any,shall}

¶48

stand closed.

¶49

SD/. K.^SAILESHI DEPUTY R^EGISTRAR

¶50

,TRUE COPY//

¶51

SECT o^{N OFFICER}

¶52

To 1. The Soecial Deputy Collector' Land Acquisition' (lndustries) Government of ' i![.6r,ii ririt<uuno Road' Hvderabad . .

¶53

The Secretarv,^{rr.,ntioX'-ib'it} "o^{e'iuingsSaifabad'State of Telangana} . ?L:8:::i"1Research^{centre lmarat(RCl)' Research and Developme'nt} organisation,^{rtrini'tii'oi;"il"n;'-G;);;;i""iof lndia' P'o' Vignan Kancha'} Til:"i3:fr3;%rficer,^{Posting Section' Hish court for the State of relangana'}

¶54

^ , ?llt'j)Jf,3fi%n,."|.,^{D.B section'High court ror the Stateor relansana' at} . ?l,t"6t3f"^{GP FoR LANDAcoulslrloN'High courtfor the stateof}

¶55

, +*:XgfLPESfitfS^t33X^o^{ur,.r,*oS,Hish court ror the stateor} ' i"t"nqrn, at HYderabad' [OUT]

¶56

8 oH'ic^{i; ye, r1e^9iiLn iHnrinr-erHe'A{'ei+i'roStY3lro*} .ENERAL 6. il; cc^{i" snr GADiPRAVEENKUMAR'DEP} oF INDIA^(oPUC)

¶57

10.Two^{CD CoPies} a 0-

¶58

SA ' GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011112024

JUDGMENT

WA.No.1312 of 2024

t rlE s rr(
6,
a
I oo 2 f iJ[v ?D?l
,.9
{-'
r;u(9

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE W.A

¶65

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶66

Q .,t
lft
.-7 , rl lz+
t---t)

Jai Prakash Singh v. The Special Deputy Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash Singh v. The Special Deputy Collector

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

State Bank of India Vs K.S. Paranjyothi

V.Praveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

G.Uma.Rani Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Sardar Vs K. Varun Reddy

Mrs. Kontham Sugunalatha Vs The Assessment Unit

Mrs.Kontham Sugunalatha Vs The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac)