Disposed

Smt. v. Jyothi v The Union of India

Telangana HC21 Sept 2024WP/26043/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the respondents' threat to take their agricultural land for National Highway 65 widening without compensation or due procedure. The Court directed the respondents to follow due legal procedure if the land is required for the project and disposed of the writ petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to follow due procedure in accordance with law if petitioners' land is required for highway expansion.

Smt. v. Jyothi Vs The Union of India — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

SATURDAY, THE^{TWENTY FIRST DAYOF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEC.V.BHASKARREDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^N O:26^{o43 0F 2024}

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Smt. V. Jvothi, Wo^{V.Pandurangam,aged 45 years' Occ Business'} nlo H rlo.t3-l-137,^{MotiNagar, Hyderabad'}

¶9

1. Smt. T Bhagya^{Lakshmi, Wo KSatyanarayana'. aged. 59 years'} -Golnaka' Alwal' S-ecunderabad

¶10

occ. Household,^{R/"T iii; i-i t -bd}

¶11

P' Rammohan^{Rao, S/o Keshava Rao, aged 67 Vears, occ' Business.} R/o Plot No^{23lA vi"il;";;;;;'i} ioL'iv'^{R'ratpallv'Hvderabad'}

¶12

4'P.Venkat,S/oMuralidharRao,aged.5gyears,occ'Business,R/oPlotNo, b+s, Hl,ii^{Hilli, Kukatpallv, Hvderabad}

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND1 The Union^{of lndia,Rep,by its Secretary, Ministryof RoadTransportand} HighwaYs.^{New Delhi}

¶15

Authoritv^{of rndia' Baniara Hirrs' Road}

¶16

2 l,:"r:sl"r**"..,:tl^HiHi;,Jif*av

¶17

3 H",,t;.",tlu'51:,u3:,!f;^{3ij,:'*partment'(PwD)centrarBuirdinss} "m#ifr:"?:'x?'3'#aTl,1ff$50?50'nment'(PwD)centrar

¶18

4 ii.}^','A='^{Ett"',tT',i3 ::'B}

¶19

D e^{p a rtm e nt'( PwD) c e ntra I B u irdi n g s}

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition^{under Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} filed^{therewith' the High court may be} circumstances^{stated in ;"} ";';pleased^{to issue} ''n o'""noamus or 'li-::tl ,T,H:lffi^t:ff::::I ''in direction^{declaring the action of the respondentstr} No^{791 of Rudraramvillage'Patancheru} petitioners^{lands situated} ""' 0")"g^{compensatron and w\hout to\ow\ns due} [anta'^{\iredak D\s\nc\ **}

¶22

process of law as illegal. arbrtrary and also violative of our rights r nder Article 2l and 300-4 of the constitutron of lndia and for a consequential Jrrection to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of petitioner s land without following due process of law under National Highways Act, 1g56.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶24

Petition under Section l5'l cpc praying that in the circum.;tances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the responderrts not to dispossess petitroners from their rands in survey No.7g-r of Rudraram village, patancheru Mandal, Medak District, withcut following due process of law.

¶25

Counsel for the petitioners: SRI D. KRISHNA MURTHY

¶26

Counsel for the Resoondent Nos.1,3 to 5: MS. N.V.R. RAJYA LAXMI, E[i+;ttt',*c^{FoR sRr eaor pilnv-err'ixljiiehjs,. sc FoR} cENTRL

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRt M. RAMU SC FOR NHAI

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

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

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.26O43 of2024

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This Writ Petition is filed declaring the action^{of the} respondents in threatening to lay road in^{petitioners land} situated in Sy.No.79 1 of Rudraram^{Village, Patancheru Mandal,} Sangareddy District, without^{payingcompensationand without} following due process of law as illegal,^{arbitrary and also} violative of our rights under^{Articles21 and 300-A of the} Constitution of India and for a^{consequentialdirectionto the} respondents not to interfere with^{the possession of petitioner's} lald without following due^process of law under^National Highways Act, 1956 and for other appropriate^reliefs.

¶33

The case of the petitioners that they^{are the ownersand} possessors of agricultural land admeasuring^{Ac.0-31 guntas,in} Sy.No.79l situated at^{Rudraram Village, Patancheru Mandal,} Sangareddy District.^{It is the furthercase of the petitioners that} their names^{were recordedas pattadarsin the revenue records} and^{pattadarpass books and title deeds have been issuedas per} the provisions^{of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar} Pass Books Act,^{1971 and they are also receivingrythu bqndhu}

)

CVBR, J wp 26043_2024

¶38

investrnent subsidy for cultivation of their lands. It is the further case of the petitioners that the respondents are making efforts to dispossess them from their lands for exoansion of existing 100 fcet National Highway 65 from l{yclerabad to Mumbai, without initiating proceedings under the pr ovisions of the Act, 2Ol3 or without conducting any survey ol the lands which are aflected in the road widening.

¶39

Heard Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. N.V.R.Rajya Laxmi, learnerl counsel represen ting Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 3 :o 5 and Sri M. Ramu, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI appearing for respondent Nos.2.

¶40

It is the case of the petitioners that they ar< the owners and possessors of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0_31 guntas, in Sy.No.791 situated at Rudraram Village, patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District. It is further case of the petitioners thal. their lands are abutting to the National Highu,ay leading from Hyde rabad to Mumbai. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has not disputed that they hirve taken up road q,idening/expansion of the existing 10O 1.eet National

¶41

¶42

CVBR, J wp_26043 2024

¶43

Highway No.65 leading^{from Hyderabad to Mumbai. Since it is} stated that the^{petitioners' lands were abuttingto the National} Highway, if the lands are in^{any way affected in the work taken} up by the respondents^{for expansion} /^formation /^renovationof existing 100 feet National^{Highway No.65 and if the lands of the} petitioners are required for^{the aforesaid purpose, the} respondents are directed^{to follow due procedure in accordance} with [aw.

¶44

With the above observations,^{the writ petition is disposed}

¶45

of. No costs

¶46

6 As a sequel, the miscellaneous^{petitions pending, if any,}

¶47

shall stand closed.

¶48

SD/- N.CHANDRA^SEKHA o ASSISTANT^REGI RAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION FICER

¶49

To, 1. The Secretary,^{Ministry of RoadTransportand Highways The Unionof lndia'} New Delhi.

¶50

2TheProiectDirector,NationalHighwayAuthorityoflndia,BanjaraHills'Road - No.2, Sagar Society, HYderabad

¶51

The Executive^{Engineer, Rand B Department, (PWD) Central Buildings} " Dlri.rn, A.C. Gua-rds, Hyderabad'

¶52

4 - The DepUtV Executive -c.^Engineer, cnards' Hvderabad^{RandB Department, (PWD) Central} A,iioT.dt^rji'iii',onn

¶53

5TheAssistantEngineerRandBDepartment,(PWD)CentralBuildings" oirlJiin A.C. crids, HYderabad

¶54

One^{CC to Sri D Krishna Murthy' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶55

T,oneCCtoSriGadiPraveenKumar(ST.SCfoTCENTRLGoVT)IoPUC]

¶56

One^{CC to Sri M Ramu' SC for NHAIIOPUCI}

¶57

Two^{CD CoPies} TJ LSA"

¶58

_-r--^{-.-..7---*1v--t7:--i.i?':.}'-ra'_

¶59

HIGH COURT

¶60

DATED:21 10912024

¶61

/ , -'-i-'-..':.,--: Jl,i, Ih+ t :,
41*
/)
II 'io?t
'; I :{.

¶62

ORDER

¶63

WP.No.26043 of 2024

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶65

WITHOUT COSTS

¶66

,P W

Smt. v. Jyothi v The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. v. Jyothi v The Union of India

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.B.Prashanth Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Dhanikonda Mahalaxmi Vs The Sub Collector (Revenue Divisional officer)

Oruganti Posani D/o. Narayana Aged bout 39 years Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary

D.Govinda Rao Vs The Government of Ap., rep.by its principal Secretary

S.Sugunaker Rao Vs The District Collector

Nampalli Yakaiah, Vs The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Grade