Disposed

P. Ramapoola Devi, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC3 Jan 2024WP/164/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana closed Writ Petition No.164 of 2013 filed by property owners against road construction without acquisition proceedings. The Court held that due to a subsequent stay order in a related petition directing acquisition under the 2013 Act, this petition was rendered infructuous.

What did the court decide?

None granted; Writ petition closed as no further orders are necessary following the disposal of a subsequent petition.

P. Ramapoola Devi, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PET]TION NO: 164 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. Ramapoola Devi, w/o.Late P.Mruthyunjaya Reddy, aged 7g years, Occu Housewife,

¶9

P..Maheshwar Reddy, s/o Late P.Mruthyunjaya Reddy, aged 55 years, Occu self employed ,

¶10

P. Jagadishwar Reddy, s/o Late P.Mruthyunjaya Reddy, aged 53 years, Occu Business

¶11

P. Bhaskar Reddy, sio Late P.Mruthyunjaya Reddy,

¶12

AII are Residents of H.No^'19-96/1 1, Plot No.168, East Kalyan purl, Hyderabad-39.

¶13

P. Sreedhar Reddy, s/o Late P.Mruthyunjaya Reddy, aqed 48 vears Occu Advocate,^{trJo12-51291512,} Vijayapuri coiony, Tarnaka, Seclunderatiad-1 7.

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Roads and Buildings Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyd'erabad.

¶17

Superintendent Engineer, Roads and Building, Warangal District, Warangal

¶18

The Executive Engineer, Roads and Warangal District, Warangal

¶19

The District Collector, Warangal District, Warangal

¶20

Warangal Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Warangal,

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

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 issue a writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondentsl to 3 in interfering with the rights of the petitioners in their property admeasuring 2500 sq.yds ln premises no- 1-7€70(new) corresponding H.No 1-778(old) in Survey no- 1003

¶23

situated at Hunter Road, Subedari, Hanamkonda,^{Warangal and purporting take} over the same by laying a black top road and take^{up other road workswithout} lnitiating^proceedings under the Land Acquisition^{Act, 1894 as illegal, arbitrary} and unconstitutional, against the^principles of^{naturaljustice and in contravention} of the^provisions of the Land Acquisition^{Act, 1894 and consequently directthe} respondents not to interfere with the rights of the^{petitioners or take up any type} of road work in the subject^property without initiating^{landacquisition proceedings} and without paying compensation to the^petitioners.

¶24

l.A. NO: 1OF 2o13(WPMP. NO:21.4 OF 20131

¶25

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 pleasedto} direct the respondents not to interfere with the rights^{of the petitionersor lay a} cement concrete road /black top road or to take up any type^{of roadwork in the} property admeasuring 2500 sq.yds in premises no: 1-7-870(new) corresponding H.No.1-7-78(old) in Survey no: 1003 situated at^{Hunter Road,Subedarl,} Hanamkonda, Warangal.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.M.M.CHARY

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents No.'lto3 : GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.S :

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE C.V. BHASKARREDDY} WRIT^{PETITIONNo. 164 of 2O13}

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This writ^{petitionis filed seekingthe following relief:}

¶34

"... to^{issue a writ, order or direction and more} particularly one^{inthe nature of writ of} Mandamus^{declaringthe action of respondent} Nos.1 to 3^{in interfering with the rights of the} petitioners in^{their propertyadmeasuring25OO} "qr*.^{yards in premisesNo'1-7-870 (new)'} corresponding^{H.No.1-7-78 (old) in Sy'No'1O03} situated at^{Hunter Road,Subedari'} Hanamkonda,^{Warangal and purportingtake} over the^{same by laying a black top road and} take up other^{road works without initiating} proceedings under^{the LandAcquisitionAct'} i8g+ ^" illegal,^{arbitrary and unconstitutional'} against the^{principles of natural justice and in} contravention of^{the provisionsof the Land} Acquisition Act,^{1894 and consequentlydirect} the respondents^{not to interfere with the rights} of the petitioners^{or take up arry type of road} work in the subject^{propertywithout initiating} land acquisition^{proceedings and without} paying compensation^{to the petitioners"} '"

¶35

Learned counsel^{appearing for the petitionerhas fairly} submitted that pending^{adjudicationof this writ petition'} petitioners Iiled W.P.No.15960^{of 2023 and this Court' uide}

¶36

-^{4rder, dated} alt^{18.07.2023 altowed the said writ petition}

¶37

:=Y i,:ea++:t'ai!--: , jci,iBffiEii{;ij

¶38

)

¶39

directing the respondents to initiate the Land Acquisition Proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and conclude the same, by passing an Award and paying compensation to the petitioners in accordalce to law, as per the rules in force as on date in respect of the subject property, within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of Order. Learned counsel further submitted that this writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to proceed with laying of road, without initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, lg94 and the respondents have already laid the road in the subject property and initiated the acquisition proceedings. He further submitted that in view of the disposal of the subsequent writ petition, the cause in this writ petition does not survive for further adjudication.

¶40