Disposed

Sri Madugula Prathap Reddy v. The State of Telangana, represented by its PrI. Secretary

Telangana HC2 Sept 2024WP/1787/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging inaction in paying land acquisition compensation. Court held that respondents had already deposited compensation and disposed of petition by directing petitioner to file application for compensation in the concerned court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file application seeking compensation before the concerned Court enclosing relevant documents.

Sri Madugula Prathap Reddy Vs The State of Telangana… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[^32e5 ]

¶3

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

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 1787 OF 2015

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri Madugula Prathap Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, Aged about 60 Yrs., Occ Agriculture, r/o Plot No 75, Road No.4, Suryodaya Colony, L.B.Nagar, R.R. District. N/o Pillaipalh Vrllage, Bhudan Pochampally Mandal, Nalgonda District'

¶10

...PETrroNER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, represented by its Prl. Secretary, Department of Revenue (Land Acquisition). Secretariat. Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector (Land Acquisition). Nalgonda District, Telangana.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Bhoodan Pochampally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶15

...RESPONOENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affadavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in not granting compensation to the petitroner for his agricultural land admeasurpg Ac.100 Gts., in Sy.No.218. of Pillarpally Vrllage. Bhoodan Pochampally Mandal, Nalgonda District, which were acquired by the respondents for the purpose of Flood Flow canal cum irragataon channel from Pillaipally Anicut under Notification No.674, dated 12-04-2010 of the Government vide procedings No.G11204312010, dated 10-04-2010 violation of the prescribed principles of law and^justice, illegal, arbitrary, violative of constitutional provisions. detrimental to the fundamental rights of the petrtioner besrdes violative of all canons and fiar play and natural justice and also contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and consequently direct the respondents to pay proper compensation to the

¶17

petitioner considering the value of the land as^{per open market and also or the} existing trees and agricultural well .NO:1OF PMP. NO: 2260 F20

¶18

Petition under section¹⁵¹ CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High court may be pleased direct} the respondents to^{pay propercompensationto the petitioner considering the} value of the land as^per open^{market and also or the existingtreesand} agricultural well in the^{landof the petitioner i.e,, agricultural land admeasuring} Ac.1-00 Gts., in Sy.No.218, of^{PillaipallyVillage,Bhoodan PochampallyMandal,} Nalgonda District,^pending disposal^{of the main Writ Petition}

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI K. GANI REDDY}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents:^{GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION}

¶21

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO.L787 of^2OL6

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition is liled^{seeking the following reliel}

¶27

"....to !'ssue^{ang qppropriate wit,order or dtrectionmore} partiantarlg one in the^natureof uit^{of mandamus declaingthe} inaaion oj lhe^{Respondentsin not granting compensation to the} petitioner for his agicultural^{land admeasurpgAc'140Gts in} '5g.No.218- of Ptltaipallg village, Bhoodatr Pochampallg Mandn\ ialgonaa Dtstrict^{whichwereac4uired bg the respondents.forthe} pufiose of Flood- Now canal^{qtm irrigationchannel} from^hllaipatlg -Anicut under Nottfication No.674, dated 1204 2010 of the Gotanlment uide^{proceedings No.Gl/2O43/2010dated} 10.04.2010 uiolation^{of theprescribed pirrciples of law and justice'} iltegal, arbilrary,^{violatiue of constitutionalprouisions detrimental} to ihe Tundamentat^{rightsof the petitioner besidesviolatiueof all} canoni and fiar^{plag and naturaljustice and o,lso cotiraryto the} proursions oj tte tand erqrisilion^{Act, anrd corrsequentlg direct the} -responlenls to p(tg proper compensatiort to the petitioner aisideing tle^{ualue of the land as per opeimarketand also or} tle existing trees^{and agricultural well.-.."}

¶28

Considered the^{submissions of the learnedcounsel for} the respective^{partiesand perusedthe record}

¶29

The case of the^{petitioner is that he is the absolute} owner and^{possessorof land admeasuringAc' 1-00 guntas in} Sy.No.218 situated^{atPillaipally Village,Bhoodan} p6stram pally Mandal, Nalgonda District. It is the^{further case} of the petitioner^{that the respondents have issued notification} No.674, d.ated 12.O4.2O10,^{proposingto acquire lands to an} extent of Acs.2-29^{guntas ir-r Sy'No'218,for the purpose of}

¶30

¶31

layng Flood Flow Canal-cum-Irrigation^Channelfrom Pillaipally Anicut, out of which^{Ac.1-00 guntas in Sy.No.218} belongs to him. It is the further^{caseof the petitioner that} after. following the^{procedure contemplated underthe} provisions of the l,and Acquisition Act,^{1894, the respondents} have passed draft award dated^{O8.O8.2O11'but they are} deliberately avoiding to^{pay the compensation, without} assigrring any reasons for^{the delay.}

¶32

lrarned Government Pleader for^{Land Acquisition} appearing for respondent^Nos.1 to^{3, on instructions,would} submit that the respondents^{have acquiredan extentof} Acs.2-29 guntas in Sy.No.218^{for the purposeof laying Flood} Flow Cana-l-cum-Irrigation^{Channel from PillaipallyAnicut,} out of which Ac.1-O0^{guntas in Sy'No.218 belongs to the} petitioner and after conducting enquiry^{under the provisions} of the Land Acquisition Act,^{1894, the respondentshave} determined the compensation,^{duly taking into consideration} the market value and^{passedan award,dated O8.08'2O I 1'} Learned Government Pleader^{further submitted that the} petitioner has not filed any documentary'^evidencelike pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued^{by the competent}

J.-

-v

authority, either^{before the Tahsildar,Bhudan Pochampallly} or before the^{Revenue Divisional Officer(LAO), Bhongirfor} field enquiry and^{even after receiving the notice issued under} Sections 9(3) and^{10 in FormNos.6 and 7, there was no} appearance by the^{petitioner at the time of award enquiry'} due to which, the^{compensationof the sajd land is deposited} in the Court of Senior^{Civil Judge, Bhongir'}

¶38

Since the respondents^{have alreadydepositedthe} compensation in the^{Court of SeniorCivil Judge, Bhongir,} this Court deems it^{appropriate to dispose of this writ petition} by permitting the^{petitionerto file appropriate application} seeking compensation^{beforethe concerned Court, duly} enclosing all the relevant^documents.

¶39

With the above directions,^{the Writ Petitionis disposed} of. There shall be no^{order as to costs.}

¶40

Miscellaneous^{petitions,if any, pending in this Writ} Petition shall stand^closed. S ASSISTANT //TRUE^COPY/'

¶41

To,

¶42

tU'tir+;yt,tltru#i;uusn-:':":{1".", 6. Two^{CD CoPies} BM - LS \01.

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210912024

ORDER

WP.No.1787 ot 2016

t'HE S14 r(
7
;<br>oo 10 DEl, 2024 'l
o
-,,
\ I +
i o61;.,rr (<br>

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE^{WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶49

n^(dd"'b Yr -r(G'r

Sri Madugula Prathap Reddy v. The State of Telangana, represented by its PrI. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Madugula Prathap Reddy v. The State of Telangana, represented by its PrI. Secretary

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

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

Syed Vicaruddin Vs The State of Telangana

Dommati Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana

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

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