Disposed

Abood Bin Hussain, Adilabad Dist. v. the Dist.Collector, Adilabad Dist., and 3 Otrs.

Telangana HC10 Sept 2024WP/10620/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging non-initiation of land acquisition proceedings and non-payment of compensation for a portion of land claimed for the Sakera Project. The Court directed respondents to follow the law and not interfere with the petitioner's possession until formal acquisition occurs.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to interfere with petitioner's possession of unacquired land and to follow legal procedure if land is required for the project.

Abood Bin Hussain, Adilabad Dist. Vs the Dist.Collector… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

I I

¶2

[^32e51

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 10620 OF 2013

¶9

Between:

¶10

Abood Bin Hussain, S/o. Hussain Bin Mohd, aged^{about 55 years,} Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No.4-4-43, Parkota, Adilabad ,^{AdilabadDistrict}

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The District Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District.

¶14

2 The Land Acquisition Officer / Revenue Divisional^{Officer, Utnoor, Adilabad} District.

¶15

The Chief Engineer, I and CAD, Minor^{lrrigation,Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.}

¶16

The Executive Engineer, l.B. Division, Nirmal,^{Adilabad District.}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution^{of lndiaprayingthat 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 of^Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents^{in not initiating the land acquisition} proceedings under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and^{not paying the} compensation amount to the^{petitioner for the acquisitionof the land to an extent} of Ac.17 12 gts. in Sy.No.10^(Old Sy.^{No.s), situated at SakeraVillage, Utnoor} Mandal, Adilabad District for the^{purposeof construction of Sakera Project even} though the^petitioner has submifted^{number of representationsto the respondents} as illegal, arbitrary, abuse of^process of^{law and violation of principles of natural} justice and contrary to the provisions of the land acquisition act and consequently direct the respondents to^pay the compensation^{to the petitioner by initiating the} land acquisition proceedings in the interest^{of justice}

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO:'t3161 OF 2013)

¶20

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 to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner by initiating the land acquisition proceedings under the provisions of land acquisition act for the acquisition of the lands to an extent of Ac.17.12 gts. in Sy.No.10 (Old Sy. No.5), situated at Sakera Village, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad District in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. SURENDER REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

c-'

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR^R-EDDY

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO.10620 of 2Ol3

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed seeking^{the followingrelief}

¶29

"....to issue a Writ, Order^{or Direction moreparticalarlya Writ of} Mandamus declaing the^{action of the respondentsin not initiating} the land a.cqtisition^{proceedtngsunder the prouisions of Land} Acquisition^Act and^{not paAingthe compensationamountto the} petitioner for the acquisition of tlrc^{land to an extefttof Acs-17-12} gts in SA.N1.10 (Old Sy-No.s) situated^{at Sakera Village,Utnoor} Manda| Aditabad^District for^{thepurposeof constructionof Sakera} Project euen though the^{petitionerhassubmitted numberof} representations to the respondents^{as illegal, arbitrary'abuse of} piocess of lau and uiolation of^{principles of natural} iustice^and contrary to the^prouisions of tle^{landacquisitionact and} consequently direct^{the respondentsto paV the comperlsationto the} petitioner bA initiating tlrc land acquisition^{proceedingsin the} inte re st of Ju stice....'

¶30

Considered the submissions^{of the learnedcounsel for the} respective parties and^{perusedthe record.}

¶31

The petitioner claims to^be the^{ownerand poss€ssor of} lands admeasuring Acs.2O-OO^{guntas in Sy.No.10 (Old Sy.No.s)} situated at Sak€ra^{Village, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad District} and'his name is mutated^{in all *rc revenuerecords. The case of} the petitioner is that in^{the year 1992,t}:re respondents have} acquir€d an extent of Acs.2-28^{guntasin Sy.No.1Oof his land} for the purpose of Sakera Project^{and paid compensati'onto the} said acquired lands. It is the^{furthercase of the petitionerthat}

¶32

¶33

C1/BR,J wp_10620_2013

¶34

without initiating proceedings under the^{provisionsof the Land} Acquisition Act, 1894^(for short 'the^{Act') the respondentshave} acquired remaining lands of^{Acs.17- 12 guntas in Sy.No.1O in} the second phase for the^purpose of Sakera^{Project and} therefore, he submitted a representation, dated^26.07.2010 before respondent No.2 requesting to^{providecertain} information with regard to acquisition of^{lands to extent of} Acs.2O-0O^guntas in Sy.No. 10, but^{respondentNo.2 failedto} consider the said representation and failed^{topay the} compensation to an extent ofAcs.2O-OO^guntas.

¶35

A counter affidavit has been hled by respondent^No.4 stating that an extent of Acs.2-25 guntas in Sy.No. 10^(Old Sy.No.-S) situated at Sakera Village, Utnoor^{Mandal, Adilabad} {. District, has been acquired by the respondents for^{formation of} Sakera Project and accordingly, compensation^{was paid} to^the petitioner, along with the enhanced decretal amount. It is further stated that the respondents have not acquired^the remaining land to an extent of Acs.17-12^guntas in^{Sy.No.1O as} claimed by the petitioner, and therefore, compensalion^{to the} entire extent of land in Sy.No. 10 cannot be^{paid, as the} remaining land to an extent of Acs.17-12^guntas in^{Sy.No'10, is} in possession of the petitioner only.

CV8R,J wp_10620_2013

In view of the above submissions, this Court^deemsit appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition^directingthe respondents not to interfere with the^{possession ofthe} petitioner for the remaining extent of Acs.^17- 12^guntasin Sy.No.lO and if the lands of the^{petitioner is required for the} purpose of Sakera Project, the respondents^{are directedto follow} the procedure laid down under^law.

¶40

With the above observations,^{the Writ Petitionis disposed}

¶41

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

¶42

Miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{pending inthis Writ}

¶43

Petition shall stand closed.

¶44

¶45

SD/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT IST

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

SEC OFFICER

¶48

To'1. The District Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer^{/ Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Utnoor, Adilabad} District. 3 inl Cni"f Engineer,^I and CAD,^{Minor lrrigation,Andhra-Pradesh, Hyderabad'} 4 The ExecutivS Engineer, LB.^{Division, Nirmal, Ad ilabad District.} 5 One CC to Sri S.^{-Surender Reddy, Advocate} [OPUC] 6 Two CCs to GP for Land Acquisition,^{Hiqh Court for the Stateof Telangana,} at Hyderabad [OUT] 7 Two CD Copies

TJ LS

-tt

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 010912024

ORDER

1 H F. 14 14:
(
J
11DEC ?024
zo
PATC\1E)

¶55

WP.No.10620 of 2013

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION

¶57

WITfl.IOUT COSTS Yt __--t- , 1z lrt l>4 <sup>o c#ul

Abood Bin Hussain, Adilabad Dist. v. the Dist.Collector, Adilabad Dist., and 3 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abood Bin Hussain, Adilabad Dist. v. the Dist.Collector, Adilabad Dist., and 3 Otrs.

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

S.K. Hussain Vs State of Telangana

H.K.Adnan Vs Union of India, represented by its Secretary

M/s. Lakshmi and Company, Vs The District Collector and District Magistrate

Chandragiri Venkati Vs Assistant Commandant/Ddo, Central Industrial Security

Smt. R. Vijaya Lamxi Vs The State of Telangana

Nadipelli Naveen Kumar Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others