Dismissed

Bere Pochaiah, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Oct 2024WP/21457/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court, Special Original Jurisdiction, in a writ petition concerning non-notification and non-payment of compensation for a house affected by land acquisition. Court examined petitioner's claim against evidence of interpolated tax receipts and prior receipt of compensation for a different property. Court dismissed the petition finding no merit in the claim.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Bere Pochaiah, Vs State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENW SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21457 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bere Pochaiah, S/o Rajeeru, aged about 45^years, Occupation ;^{Agriculture,resident} of Namnoor Village, Hazipur Mandal, Mancherial District,^{TelanganaState.}

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana, represented by the Principal^{Secretary, lrrigationand} C.A.D. Department, Secretariat, HYDERABAD-500 022(T.S.).

¶12

Executive Engineer, lrrigation and C.A.D., Sripada^{Yellampally Project,} MANCHERIAL, T.S.

¶13

District Collector, 1.A., Adilabad,^presently District^{Collector, L.A., Mancherial} District, at MANCHERIAL.

¶14

Special Deputy Collector, 1.A., Unit-ll, Dr. B.R.^Ambedkar |CSS^P1o1-ect, lViancherial Head Quarters, NASPOOR(Post), Mancherial^{District, T.S.}

¶15

Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial Division,^{MANCHERIAL(Postand} District), T.S,

¶16

Tahsildar,, Mancherial Mandal, MANCHERIAL^{(Postand District), T.S.}

¶17

....RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of^{lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue an order or directions or writ more appropriately^{a WRIT OF} TVIANDAMUS to declare the impugned action of^{the Respondents in not notifying} and not paying any compensation for having^{acquired the Petitioner's H. No 4-} 33t2 of Namnoor Village, Hazipur^{Mandal,MancherialDistrict for Yellampally} Project under Notification under Section 4(1)^{of the L A Act, '1894,vide} proceedings No.86/250/2008, dated. 1B-01-2008 till date^{is illegal, arbitraryand}

¶19

Unconstitutional and not considering the Petitioner's representations latest one dated. 18-06-2024 tilt date for not notifying and not paying the compensation to the petitioner till date is also clear violation of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and further direct the Respondents herein to notify the Petitioners H. No. 4-33l2 of Namnoor Village, Hafizpur lvlandal, Mancherial District for acquisition of Yellampally Project under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition. Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and also by passlng award under the said Act, 30 of 2013 and pay the legitimate compensation to the Petitioner for which he is entitled to forthwith.

¶20

l.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶21

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 herein to dispose of by considering the Petitioners representation dated. 18/06/2024 forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.RAJANNA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR IRRI AND COMM AREA DEVELOPMENT

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 6 : GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶25

The Court made the following ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICET. VINOD KUMAR}

¶27

WRIT PETITION^{No.2 L457 of2024}

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard^{learned counsel for the petitioner'leamed} Government^{Pleader for Irrigation &CommandArea} Development^{appearingfor respondents No' l&' 2' learned} Government^{Pleader for Land Acquisitionappearing for} respondents^{No.3 to 6, and perused the record'}

¶30

The case of^{the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the} owner^{of structure bearing Door No'4-33 / 2 situatedat} Namnoor^{Village, the then Mancherial Mandat'presently} Hazipur^{Mandal,MancherialDistrict;that thesaid} structure^{has also been assessedto propertytax by the} Namnoor^{Grampanchayathtill 2Ol2-13; and that though} the a-foresaid^{structure was acquiredby the respondents} on account of submergence^{of SripadaYellampally Project'} the said door number^{was not notified/missingin the} notification issued, under^{Section 4(1) of the Land} Acquisition Act, 1894^{(for short 'the Act') uide proceedings'} dt. 18.0 i.2OOB, for acquiring^{the entire Namnoor Village'}

¶31

¶32

¶33

Petitioner further contends that in spite of he approaching the respondents_authorities and bringing to the notice of the said authorities as to the missing house number, neither aly action was taken nor he was paid compensation in respect of his house, which got submerged on account of the release of water in the said proJect.

¶34

4 Petitioner further contends that though his house was not acquired , on account of subm ergence of the entire Namnoor Village, he lost his house; that he did not submit any objection immediately on the authorities initiating action, as he had moved out of the village for his livelihood; and that on learning of his house having been affected by submergence, he had approached the respondents_ authorities and submitted representation, dt.lg.O6.2L24, requesting the authorities to enquire into the same and notify his house bearing No.4_33/2 of Namnoor Village for payment of compensation at the earliest.

¶35

Petitioner further contends that in spite of he approaching the respondents_authorities arrd submitting the alore:y representation, the authorities neither

¶36

¶37

initiated any action till^{date nor paid compensationto the} petitioner. Hence, the^{present Writ Petition'}

¶38

Written instructions,^{dt.O7.O8'2O24,underthe} signature of Special^{DeputyCollector,LA and R&R'} Mancherial, has been^{placed beforethis Court'By the} writteninstructions,itisstatedthatintheirnotifrcation and declaration^{issued, the respondents-authoritieshave} notified the house^{bearing No.4-69/1, standinginthe} name of Bera Pochaiah,^{S/o Rajeeru,who is none other} than the^{petitionerhimself, and house bearing No'4-33'} standing in the^{name of Bera Rajamma, W/o Rajeeru'who} is the mother^{of the petitioner herein' By the written} instructions,itisfurtherstatedthatsince,ttrereexistsno house with^{door No.4-33} l2^{in the village, the same was not} notified either in^{the draft awardpassed under Section} 11(1) of the Act,^{which covered 421 stmctures uide} proceedings, dt.24.12.2OO9,^{or in thesubsequent} proceedings, dt.¹ 1.01.2010^{issued approving the draft} award.

¶39

7 . By the written^{instructions, it is furthercontended} that the respondents-authorities^{have duty notified the}

¶40

¶41

house bearing No.4-33 for acquisition and paid compensation, while the house of the petitioner as per the records of the Grampanchayath was bearing Door No.4_ 69/1, in respect of which also the respondents_authorities have paid compensation uide cheque, dt.26.Og.20lO.

¶42

By the written instructions it is further contended that since, there existed no house with door No.4_33/2, the claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation cannot be considered.

¶43

I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

¶44

Though the petitioner claims of the existence of house bearing door No.4-33/2 and to substantiate the aforesaid claim, he having filed property tax receipts of Grampanchayath, Namnoor Village of the ttren Mancheria_l Mandal, now Hazipur Mandal, dt.2Z.OS.2OL3, as being in respect of house No.4-33 / 2, a close perusal of the aforesaid receipts show interpolation after the door No.4_33 by insertion of 'f ' and number 2'.

¶45

¶46

1 1. Similarly, the Property Tax Demand^{Register of} Grampanchayath Namnoor R&R Colony,^(Gudipet), Hazipur Mandal, copies of which^{have been obtained by the} petitioner under the signature of the^{PanchayathSecretary} also show an insertion wfth'/2'against^{the door No.4-33 in} the years 2OO7-O8,2008-09 and^{2009-10 and also} 2072-t3.

¶47

Though the petitioner had^{placed reliance on the} aforesaid property tax receipts^{and extracts of the property} tax register of the Grampanchayath^{in supportof his claim} of he being the owner of house bearing^{door No.4-33/2,as} the said documents indicate interpolation/insertion^{of '12'} against house bearing door No.4-33,^{this Court is of the} view that the said documents relied upon^{by the petitioner} does not inspire confidence for this^{Court to acceptthe} petitioner's claim.

¶48

Further, petitioner, having received compensationⁱⁿ respect of house property standing in his name^{with door} No.4-69/ 1 in the year 2O7O, had kept quiet for long^period of more than 14 years after passing of the Award and^has - filed the present Writ Petition in the year 2024 claiming

¶49

¶50

that there existed a house bearing door No.4_33/ 1 belonging to him and no compensation having been paid for the said structure.

¶51

The Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Commdssioner, Mutha Associctes & Ors. a. Stolte of Maharashtrar, observed that interested person must be vigilant with regard to his rights. [See para 221.

¶52

Though the petitioner claims of he being away from the village in order to eak out his livelihood, the fact that the petitioner had already received compensation in respect of house bearing door No.4-69/ 1 in the year 2010, nullifies the said claim of the petitioner.

¶53

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that no case is made out by the petitioner for this Court to grant any relief in the present Writ petition ald the present Writ Petition as filed is devoid of merit.

¶54