Allowed

Smt.a.Manohara v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by

Telangana HC23 Sept 2024WP/11810/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a notice requiring return of land acquisition compensation. Court held that the petitioner must be given an opportunity to establish eligibility as assignees before recovery proceedings initiate, setting aside the impugned notice and remitting the matter for a fresh enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice quashed; matter remitted to District Collector for fresh enquiry on eligibility of petitioners.

Smt.a.Manohara Vs The Government of Andhra… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 11 810 0F 2010

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt- A Manohara,..Wo. Sri Ramesh, aged 30 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. tsacharam Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, RlR. Oistriit. 2 Smt- B.Andalu, Wo. Sri Katamaiah, aged 55 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Bacharam Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, nln. Ois1ri6t.,..PETITIONERS AND

¶9

The Government ofAndhra^pradesh, represented bv. Special Deoutv Collector, Land Acquisition, Unit ll ORR'Tarnaka, HiAeraOiO.^-----'

¶10

...RESPONDENTS

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to writ or order in the nature of writ of certiorari and after calling for records pertaining to lmpugned Notice No. LA/oRR/Unit-llt1oll20o5 dated 11 5.2010 issued by the 1st Respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, wholly without power or jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice, and violative of Articles 12, 14 and 21 of Constitution of lndia.

¶12

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(WPMP. NO: 14921 OF 2010)

¶13

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 suspend the Impugned order No. LA/oRR/unit-il1107/2oos dated 'l 1.5 2010 issued by the Respondent.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K.LAKSHMI NARASTMHA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI E.MADAN MOHAN RAO

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASXAR REDDY}

¶17

WRIT PETI^{TION NO.1 18 1O of2O1O}

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This Writ Petition^{is filed seekingthe followingreliel}

¶20

"....to^{pctssruitor orderin the noture of Wit of Certioraiandafier} .olil"[ io, ,".oras^{pertoiniftg to Impugne.dNoticeNo'l'A/ORR/ Unit-} iit loizizoos, aatea^{ll.s.zblo issuedbg ttrc lrespondentand} qurzsh tlrc some as^{illegal, arbitrary,who.llg} .rtithout^{poLuer or} j"-riiii.tto" uiolation of pinciptes of natural^{justice anduiolatiueof} "Articles 12, 14 and 21 of Constitution of India " '"

¶21

Considered the^{submissions of thelean-nedcounselfor the} respective^{partiesand perusedthe record'}

¶22

The case of the^{petitionersis that they are eking out their} livelihood by doing^{cooliework and considering their plight,the} Government has^{allottedland to an extent of Acs'3-00 in} Sy.No.214/ 1^{and to an extent of Acs.2-OOin Sy'No'214 situated} at Bacharam Village,^{HayathnagarMandal, Ranga Reddy} District vide^{pattacertificatesdated10.03' 1999' Itis the} further case of the^{petitioners that for the purpose of widening} of the road under Outer^{Ring Road (ORR),the respondentshave} acquired their lands and^{vide letterdated January,2O09, they} were called for producing^{patta certificatesand other relevant} documents; after due verification of the^{said documents, vide} letter dated 03.06.2OO9 compensation has been issued by the

¶23

¶24

District kgal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar for an arnount of Rs.21,60,000/- and Rs. 14,40,0O0/-. While so, the respondent has issued impugned order, dated 1 1.O5.2O 10 directing the petitioners to return the said arnounts within seven days from the date of receipt of the said order and in that regard, the petitioners have submitted representation dated 19.05.2010, but no action has been taken on the said representation.

¶25

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, wherein it is stated that the respondent has addressed a letter vide Lr.No.LAlUnit-il11O7 I2OOS dated 14.08.2OO9 to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy stating that allegations were levelled against the petitioners that they are not in actual possession of the above said lands and the compensation was paid unauthorizedly to them; requested to conduct enquiry into the said allegations and to submit a report for taking further necessary action. Pursuant thereto, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy has conducted enquiry and submitted report vide Lr.No.E4l596112OO9, dated 19.02.2009 stating that SGDC & Revenue Divisional Officer, R.R.East Division has enquired into the said allegations and submitted a report wherein it is stated that the petitioners have been granted assignment in respect of

¶26

¶27

the above said Iands and they are not in possession of the lands coming under ORR alignrnent. It is stated that the petitioners somehow received compensation by managing during the enquiry. It is further stated that they are ineligible assignees for the said compensation as they have hidden the facts and misled the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO); therefore, the respondents have issued notice to the petitioners.

¶28

There is serious dispute with regard to the lands admeasuring Acs.3-00 guntas in Sy.No.214/ 1 and admeasuring Acs.2-00 guntas in Sy.No.214 situated at Bacharam Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ald the petitioners are entitled for payment of compensation only on establishing thal they are assignees. The notice issued by the respondent states that the petitioners are not eligible for compensation and they have hidden the facts and misled the Lald Acquisition Officer, but no enquiry has been conducted for providing an opportunity to the petitioners to establish that they are assignees of the above said lands and that they are entitled for payment of compensation as determined.

¶29

I i

¶30

In view of the above, the impugned notice vide No.LAIORR/Unit-[| / 1O7 I 2005, dated 1 1.05.2010 issu qd by the- -*--

I , ,

respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy to conduct fresh enquiry by issuing notices to the petitioners. If the petitioners fail to establish themselves as assignees of the above said lands, the respondent shall initiate appropriate proceedings as permissible in law for recovery of the amount of compensation, if any, already paid to the petitioners.

¶35

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶36

of. There shali be no order as to costs.

¶37

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶38

Petition shall stand closed.

¶39

SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGIS

//TRUE GOPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Government of Telangana, Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Unit ll ORR Tarnaka, Hyderabad.

¶44

One CC to SRI K.LAKSHMI NARASIIMHA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI E.MADAN N/OHAN RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶45

Two CD Copies

PSK LS

I I l I

HIGH COU RT

DATED:2310912024

ORDER

WP.No.11810 of 2010

,'1Es 14
o
t) 26 tfiv M ot'
*
P4rcxEtl

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶54

6
Ir w
t1

Smt.a.Manohara v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.a.Manohara v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by

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

D Vijaya Lakshmi Vs The Union of India and 3 Others

Smt. v. Jyothi Vs The Union of India

Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs Union of India, Ministry of Railways, and 4 Others

M/s. Bsr Constructions Vs The State of Telangana

K. Vamshi Reddy Vs The A.P. Housing Board

Ronak Kumar Aggarwal Vs Regional Passport Office.