Disposed

Smt.D.Chudamma , Chudamani W/o Late D.Venkateswarlu v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC18 Sept 2024WP/10209/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the legality of a land acquisition notification and a Rules 151 application seeking a stay. The court directed the respondents to pay the determined compensation within four months if it has not been paid and dismissed the petition otherwise.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay compensation within four months if not already paid.

Smt.D.Chudamma , Chudamani W/o Late D.Venkateswarlu Vs… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 10209 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt.D.Chudamma @ Chudamani, Wo: Late D.Venkateswarlu, Aged about 76 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Pochammagalli, Nizamabad

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

I The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, lnigation Department,. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Special Collector, Land Acquisition, Sri Ram Sagar Project, Sripada Sagar, Pranahitha Chevalla and J.P.R.G.L.l,C., Tarnaka, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constltution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the issuance of the Notification Proc.No.C3/12412013-2 dl.7-3-2013 which was^published in Eenadu Telugu Newspaper dt.19-03-2013 under Section 17 (1) and (2) of Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of petitioners land in Sy.No.611 admeasuring Ac.4.04 gts of Mudakpally Village, Nizamabad Mandal and District as illegal, arbitrary andⁱⁿ violation of Articles 14 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same.

¶15

LA. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 12684 OF 2013)

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay the Notification in Proc.No.C3112412013-2 dt.7-3-2013 which was^publishedin

¶17

Eenadu Telugu Newspaper dt 19-03-2013 under Section 17 (1) & (2) of Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of petitioenr's land in Sy.No.611 admeasuring 4c.4.04 gts of Mudakpally Village, Nizamabad Mandal & District, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. V. KALYAN SINGH

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶22

I]IT PETITION NO.1O2O9 of 2013

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶25

"....to issue an appropiate writ, order or direction^more particularly one in the nature oJ Writ of Mandamus declaing the issuance of the Notification Proc No.C3/ 124/20132, dt 7.3.2013 Luhich u.)as published in Eenadu Telugu Nellspaper dt^19.03.2O13 under Section 17 (1) A Q) of Land Acquisition Act Jor acquisitton of petitioners tand in Sg.No.611 admeasuring Acs.4-O4 gts of Mudakpallg Village, Nizamabad Mandal and. Distict as^illegal, arbitrary and in uiolation of Arlicles 14 and 3OOA oJ^the Constittttion of India. . . .'

¶26

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

¶27

The petitioner claims to be the owner and^possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.8-34 guntas in Sy.No.61 1 situated at Mudakpally Village, Nizamabad Mandal, Nizamabad^District, having purchased by her husband and after^the dgath of^her husband, her name was mutated in the^{revenuerecords and the} said lands are the only source of her livelihood.^{Thecase of the} petitioner is that the respondents have issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,^{1894 (for short,} 'the Act") and a draft declaration under Section 6 of^{the Act was} published ald the Contractors are commencing the work. It^is the case of-ti5: petitioner that the respondents^{have not followed}

¶28

¶29

¶30

the procedure as contemplated under Section S-A of the Act, dispensing with the enquiry nor they have obtained necessary permissions, as required, to invoke the power under Section 17 (4) of the Act. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that since the respondents have not followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act, notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and consequential declaration and passing of the award are illegal and prayed to set aside the same.

¶31

Learned Assistant Government pleader for tand Acquisition appearing for the respondents, relying on the proceedings No.C3l 124/2013, dated 2|.OA.2O13, submitted that the land to an extent of Ac.4.O4 gts. situated in the limits of Mudakpally Village, Nizamabad Mandal, Nizamabad District, acquired for the purpose of acquisition for dumping yard and after preliminary valuation of the said land, the respondents have finalized the amount payable to the land losers at the rate of Rs. 10,92,65O/-. Learned Assistant Government pleader further submitted that the respondents have acquired the said land and also determined the compensation amount payable to the land losers following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Act.

¶32

¶33

Sri T.V. Kalyan Singh, learned counsel for the^petitioner disputed the fact of^payment of compensation in^{terms of the} provisions of the Act.

¶34

The respondents have not filed counter afiidavit. stating that they have determined the compensation^payable to^the petitioner. Be ttrat as it may, since it is the case of the respondents that they have acquired the land uide^notification proceedings No.C3/ 12412013-2, dated 07.03.2013, if the compensation amount as determined under the^{provisions of} the Act has not been paid to the^{petitioner for his land} admeasuring Ac.4.O4 gts in Sy.No.611 situated at^Mudakpally Village, Nizamabad Mandal, Nizamabad^{District, the} respondents are directed to^pay the compensation^{in terms of} the provisions of the Act, within a^{period of four (04) months} from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

With the above observations, this Writ^{Petition is disposed}

¶36

of. There shall be no order as^{to costs.}

¶37

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall^stand closed.

¶38

To,

¶39

sD/'PI'Jt,S+iG'tfHSillHRA \

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTIOTtrr'OFFICER

1 . The^PrinciPa I Secreta ry, The Government^{of Andhra Pradesh' lrrigation} 2. 3 The DepartPranaOne^SCC pechith^ment,to ial a Chevalla^Sri Collector,SecretaT. V. KalY^a riat,^nd Land Acq^{an J.P.R.G} Hvd^{Singh,erabaduisition,} Ltc.,Advoca^{Sri Ram} Tarnaka, re [oPU^{Saga r Pro.iect, SriPada H} clyde rabad^Sagar' 4 Two^{CCs to G} P for Land^{Acquisition , High Courtfor theStateof Telangana,at} Hyder^abad [OUTI

¶44

1. Two the State^C CstoT^{of Telan} he GP ana,^{forlrrioation} -t Fyderabad[OPUC]^{andCommon Area Development' High Courtfor} o Two^{CD CoPies} T J I q

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810912024

r't-!E S14
(.
o I I il0ti 2il24 I
o I
I
II

¶49

ORDER

¶50

WP.No.10209 of 2013

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶52

WITHOUT COSTS

Smt.D.Chudamma , Chudamani W/o Late D.Venkateswarlu v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.D.Chudamma , Chudamani W/o Late D.Venkateswarlu v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Peddaveni Yamuna Vs Sri. Anurag Jayanthi

Jarpula Samya Vs The State of Telangana

Anita Agarwal Vs D. Ronald Rose

M/s.Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Hamali Labour Contract Co-Operative Socieety Limited Vs The Government of India

M/s Sri Anjaneya Trading Company, Vs Union of India

M. Malla Reddy Vs Union of India