Dismissed

Shaheen Jahangir Begum, R.R.Dist. v. the State of Tg.,L.a.,Hyd.,and 4 Otrs.

Telangana HC23 Aug 2024WP/32994/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a writ petition challenging the failure of respondents to initiate land acquisition proceedings. The petitioner claimed partial possession of land affected by NH7 widening and sought compensation. The court noted a serious dispute over whether the petitioner actually holds the land according to revenue records.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach competent Civil Court for appropriate relief as her claim of land ownership is disputed in revenue records. Writ petition dismissed without costs.

Shaheen Jahangir Begum, R.R.Dist. Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY^{OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V. BHASKARREDDY}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 32994 OF²⁰¹⁵

¶8

Between:

¶9

Shaheen Jahangir Begum W/o Syed^{Jahangir,Aged abou.t- 55.-y,e} ars Occ House wife, R7o.20-T10,Qamar - It/lanzil, Shamshabad (V)and(l\tl) ,^Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

,..PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . The State of Telangana rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (LA) Department. Secretariat. Hyderabad.

¶13

Th6 District Collector^(LA). ilanga^{Reddy District.,-}

¶14

The Spl. Gr. Dy. Cottei:tor^{&, The Revenue Divisional Officer,Chevella} Revenue Division, R.Reddy District.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Shamshabdd lt/landal,^{RangaReddy District-}

¶16

National High Way Authority^{of lndia, (lt{nistry of Roadand Transportand} Highways) Froject'implemeniation Unit, is'^{flooi Plot No25,RoadNo.2,Castle} Hills, Ivlasabtank, Hyderabad-SOO0 57

¶17

...RES,ONDENTS

¶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 writ, order or orders specially one in^{the nature of writ of} Mandamus declaring the action of^{the respondents 'l to 5 in not initiatingthe} proceedings under the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 in acquiring^{the land of an} extent of Ac.0-30^gts in S.Nos 761 and^{763 of ShamshabadVillage, Rangareddy} Distrrct as illegal, arbitrary, violative of^{Art 300 A of constitutionof lndia and} consequently direct the respondents to^{initiate LandAcquisition proceedings to} acquire the land of the extent Ac.0-30^{gts in sy.No.76'1and 763 of Shamshabad} viltage and tvlandal, Rangareddy Dist^{as per Rightto Fair compensationand} Transparency in Land Acquisition,^{Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20'13 and} to pay compensation under the^{provisionsof the saidAct}

¶19

I 7/

¶20

2 ,/ l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 42599 OF 2015)

¶21

¶22

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 to pay interim compensation of Rs.50 lakhs in respect of the road laid in land of an extent of Ac.O-30 gts in S.Nos 761 & 763 of Shamshabad Village, Ranga Reddy District as per the market value certificate issued by the office of Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad

¶23

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 42600 OF 2015)

¶24

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 1 to 5 to consider the representation dated 23-05-201j and other correspondence inter se the officials in respect of Ac.0-30 gts in S.No. 761 & 763 of Shamshabad Village. Rangareddy District

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt B. JAYASRI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: GP FOR REVENUE/ GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI MADISHETTY RAMU, SC FOR NHAI

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BTIASKAR R-EDDY

¶30

WRIT PETITI ON No.32994 of 2015

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in not initiating the proceedings under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2O 13 (for short 'the Act) in acquiring the iand to an extent of Ac.O.3O Gts in Sy.Nos.761 and 763 of Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 3004. of the Constitution of India and consequently, prayed to direct the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceedings and for other appropriate reliefs.

¶33

Considered the submissions of Smt.B.Jayasri, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents and perused the record.

¶34

The case of the petitioner is that she acquired the land to an extent of Ac. 1.05 Gts in Sy.Nos.761, 763 arrd 264 situated at Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District, by way of inheritance. It is further case of the petitioner that on the eastern side of the said land, a strip of 25 feet covering total area of 2,399 -sq.yds^{remained with her} alter alienating other lands. It is further

¶35

2 CVBR, W p -32994^{_20 t5}

¶36

stated that the respondents while expanding NFIT From Aramghar to Thondupally vitlagc, mentioned that an e,.itent of Ac.O-30 gts in Sy.Nos.761 and 763 of Shamshabad Village, was affected. When the compensation amount was paid to the adjacent land owners, it is stated that she submitted a representation dated O7.l 1.2007 to the respondents. It is her further case that acting on the said rcpresentation, respondent No.3 addresscd a retter dated 23.11.2OO7 to respondent No.4 calling for the report as to whether the land belonging to the petitioner was atfccted and acquired for NH7 expansion and in response to the same, respondent No.4 submitted a report dated 29. 1 l.2OOg stating that the Mandal Surveyor has conducted the survey and reported that the land in Sy.No.763 to an extent of Ac.0.30 Gts had likely been affected by land acquisition and respondent No.4 also enclosed a copy of sketch prepared by the Mandal Surveyor. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent No.S arso addressed a retter dated 12.06.2010 to respondent 2 stating that the package of expansion work of four laning of NH7 is at the verge of completion and ttre land acquisition was not anticipated initially and as such, requested to ascertain whether any lands are effected in road widening.

II i

I I

CVBR, J wp )299a]0ls

The grievance of the petitioner is that even after the report submitted by respondent No.4 stating that the subject land was affected for NH7 expansion, the respondents are not initiating steps to award compensation to her in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

¶43

Respondent No.3 filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that in response to the letter addressed by them to respondent No.5, a reply has been received informing that four laning work from 10/0 to Km.221300 is already completed and traffic is plying on the road for the last 1O years. It is further stated that as per the report of the Tahsiidar, Shamshabad Mandal, the road laid in Sy.No.763 to an extent of Ac.0.23Gts is not found in the requisition proposal submitted by the NHAI, as such, ttre same is not covered in the award. It is further submitted that as per pahanies for the years 2005-06 and 20O6-07 and I-B Register of Shamshabad Village, the entire land in Sy.Nos.761 and 763 has been sold by the petitioner.

¶44

There is no dispute that some part of the land in Sy.No.763 was affected for laying of corridor road NH7. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner is not holding any land in her narne as per revenue records in the said survey numbers, as whatever extent she possessed earlier has a-Lreadv bee,n $oid out lo

¶45

¶46

CVBR, Wp_32994_-2015

¶47

third parties, prior to the issuance of notification for acquisition of the land and hence, she is not entitled fo.r any compensation. Since the respondents have seriously disputed stating that the petitioner is not holding any land, the petitioner is at liberty to approach competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief, if she is so advised.

¶48

7 Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as [o costs

¶49

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶50

closed.

¶51

I I

¶52

SD/. V. KAVITHA ASSISTAN\TEJiISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ,l SECTION OFFICER

¶53

To,

¶54

One CC to Smt. B. JAYASRI, Advocate IOPUCI 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court foi the State of Telangana at

¶55

Hyderabad [OUT] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶56

One CC to SRl. MADISHETTY RAMU , SC FOR NHATIOPUCI

¶57

Two CD Copies

B M LJ

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310812024

ORDER

WP.No.32994 of 2015

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @P4"nlffi*

Shaheen Jahangir Begum, R.R.Dist. v. the State of Tg.,L.a.,Hyd.,and 4 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaheen Jahangir Begum, R.R.Dist. v. the State of Tg.,L.a.,Hyd.,and 4 Otrs.

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

Geological Survey of India Employees Association Vs Union of India

Mohammed Omer Vs The State of Telangana

Malim Saleem Vs Land Acquisition Officer-cumRevenue

Smt. Nakka Pushpalatha Vs Mrs. Chandana Deepthi

Repaka Laxmi Narayana Vs Dr. Priyanka Ala, IAS

Sri. S. R. Prithviraj Yadav, Vs The State of Telangana