Disposed

St. Thomas (Spg) Tamil Church Society, v. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal

Telangana HC2 Sept 2024WP/1752/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition and miscellaneous petition, the Telangana High Court rejected the petitioner society's attempt to stop demolition of its boundary wall. Ruling that compensation was deposited under the Land Acquisition Act, the court granted liberty to approach the Civil Court and closed the writ petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

liberty granted to shake rights before concerned Court by filing appropriate application if entitled for receiving any compensation

St. Thomas (Spg) Tamil Church Society, Vs The State of… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

I I

¶2

[^32s61

¶3

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

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 1752 OF 2016

¶8

Between:

¶9

St Thornas (SPG) Tarnil Church Society, Represented by its Property Secretary, Mr. David M. Thomas, S/o Late S.R. Thomas, aged aboirt 54 yieari, Occ prciperty Secretary, To St. Thomas (SPG) Tamil Church-Society, Rio H.ruos.Z-t-t to il-A, situated at St. Thomas (SPG) Church Compound Statiod Road, Secunderabad.

¶10

,..PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal, Smretary Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad1

¶14

The Speciql Grade Dy, Collector & Land Acquisition Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad Metrd Rail^project, Hyderabad4.

¶15

a Ing Hyderabad Metro Railway Limited, Represented by its Managing Director Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶16

5 The Works Manager Larson & Turbo Ltd., 4th Floor - e3, Cyber Towers, Hitech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad-S0O 081.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 pass order or orders one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the respondents for interfering and trying to demolish boundary wall of the church commentary, Graves of the petitioners society property bearing Plot No.2, in the premises No.7-1-13-1 to the extent of 337.50 sq.

¶19

mtrs, situated at St.Mary Road, Secunderabad, by making a construction without following due process of law

¶20

a) Consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 15-12-2015 and 05-i-2016

¶21

b) Declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and against the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Amended Act of 2007 and also Article 300(4) of the Constitution of lndia.

¶22

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016 IWPMP. NO: 2218 OF 2016)

¶23

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ln support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 and 5 not interfere and demolish boundary wall of the church cemetery, Graves of the petitioner's Society property bearing Plot No.2, in the premises No. 7-1-13-1 to the extent, of 337.50 sq. mtrs, situated at St.Mary Road, Secunderabad, without following due process of law inspite of giving representation made on 15-12-2015 and 05-01-2016, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents No.l & 2: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY, S.C, FOR GHMC

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents No. 4 & 5: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

-1\

¶30

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.1752 of 2OL6

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This writ petition is filed praying this Court to declare the action of the respondents in interfering and trying to demolish the boundary wall of the Church Commentary, Graves of the petitioner's property bearing plot No.2 in the premises No.7-1-13-1 to an extent of 337.50 square meters situated at St.Mary Road, Secunderabad as illegal and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representations, dated 15.12.2O15 and 05.01.2016 submitted by the petitioner and for other appropriate reliefs.

¶34

Considered the submissions made by Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos. I and 2, Sri Katika Rarrinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and perused the record.

¶35

¶36

CVBR, J wp-1752_2016

¶37

The petitioner claims to be a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 and their employees have visited the premises of the society and marked certain portion and also making efforts to demolish the compound wall without issuing any notice and without following the procedure as contemplated in law. lt is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities a-re pressurizing the members of the petitioner society to surrender the land approximately to an extent of 500 square meters. The grievance of the petitioner is that without paying the compensation, the respondent authorities are frequently interfering and making efforts to demolish the existing structures which are in its occupation.

¶38

A counter-affidavit has been hled by respondent No.4 stating that an extent of 2007.86 square yards with structures abutting to the boundary of the petitioner,s property was acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair

¶39

¶40

CVBR, J Wp_t752_2016

¶41

Compensation and^{Transparency and Land Acquisition,} Rehabilitation and^{ResettlementAct, 2013 (for short 'the} Act"). It is further^{stated that in the award the} compensation for the land^{acquired along with the} structures is^{Rs.23.16 Crore and the same was depositedin} City Civil Court,^{Secunderabad for adjudication of payment} to the rightful^{owners of the property under acquisition as} there are rival^{claims over the property. It is further stated} that in the acquired^{land there are no grave yardsand} infact Pier No.39 is^{fouling in vacant land adjacentto} Bombay Lodge^{building and is not passing throughthe} 'pu.ial ground and pier No,4O is fouling in the premises of old Gandhi Hospital^{which istransferred tothe} respondents by^{the Government. It is further stated that} even the viaduct^{betweenpiers 39 and 40 is passing over} the grave yard and^{no grown up tree has been cut as} alleged in the^affidavit.

¶42

I ,

¶43

In view of the above submissions^{and since it is stated} that after following^{due procedure only the respondents} have acquired the^{land and the coqs,t-luqtionshave also}

CVBR, J wp'1752 2O16

been completed for raising pillars and after concluding award enquiry the respondents also deposited the compensation amount before the City Civii Court, Secunderabad, liberty is granted to the petitioner to agitate their rights before the concerned Court by filing appropriate application, if they are otherwise entitled for receiving any compensation.

¶48

Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs.

¶49

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if

¶50

any, shall stand closed.

¶51

SD/. P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT R ISTRAR

/ITRUE COPY//

SEC rrtceR

To,

'1. One CC to SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

Two CCs to GP for Land Acquisition,^{High Courtfor the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶57

3 One CC to SRI KATIKA RAVINDER^{REDDY, S.C. for GHMC} [OPUC]

¶58

4 Two CCs to the Advocate General, High^{Court for the Stateof Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶59

Two CD Copies ET

MP LS

I I

HIGH COURT

I
I
t

DATED:0210912024

1 Hl:. s TA r6
,) (r C
<br>J
11 Li[ti 702{ a
,L
)2

¶66

ORDER

¶67

WP.No.1752 ot 2016

¶68

CLOSTNG THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ?+ u l' l'Y 1c

St. Thomas (Spg) Tamil Church Society, v. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St. Thomas (Spg) Tamil Church Society, v. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal

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

K. Ranga Raju, Vs Mr. M.Venkateshwara Rao.

Syed Vicaruddin Vs The State of Telangana

Dommati Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana

Jagdish Prasad Sarda Vs Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank)

V. Krishna Sharma (Died) as per LRs v.Vijayalakshmi Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

J.Ananda Rao Vs the State of Ts., Rep by Its Prl.Secretary and 3 Others