Disposed

Dhanikonda Mahalaxmi v. The Sub Collector (Revenue Divisional officer)

Telangana HC20 Sept 2024WP/43148/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the declaration of land acquisition for road widening without determining compensation under the 2013 Act. The court noted the land was recorded as 'gramakantam' and that similar petitioners had received compensation per a prior order. The court directed respondents to pay compensation based on that prior order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents must pay compensation to the petitioners strictly in terms of the Revenue Divisional Officer's order dated 25.09.2015 in R.C.No.1/1004/2012 within four weeks of the date of this order.

Dhanikonda Mahalaxmi Vs The Sub Collector (Revenue… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR^REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 43148 OF 2015

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dhanikonda Mahalaxmi, W/o. Venkayya Dasu, aged^{55 years, R/o. H No. 3-1-} 12l1, Rajaveedhi Bhadrachalam, Khamma District

¶10

Kakarala Venkata Subramanya Sarma, S/o.^{LateBhairavamurthy,aged55} years Rl/o. Shilpinagar, Bhadrachalam Khammam District

¶11

Satagopam Ramana, S/o. Purushotham Charyulu^{aged 55 years,Rl/o. H No.} 'l-1-801, Saradhi Nagar, Khammam Khammam District

¶12

G. Sasikala Devi, Wlb. Ramana aged 56^{years,Rl/o. 10-1-44, Mamillagudem,} Khammam Town, Khammam District

¶13

Putta Sanjeeva Rao, S/o.Durgaiah aged 72^{years,Rl/o. H No. 2-4-144} ' Sikwada Post Kareemnagar Town, Kareemnagar^istrict

¶14

Podichiti Gopala Krishnahacharyulu, S/o.^{Podicheti Satyanar-ayana Charyulu} aged about 55 years, Rl/o. H.' No.¹ 1-1-133,^{Opp. Sub CollectorOffice,} Bhadrachalam, Khammam District

¶15

Podicheti Satyanarayana Charyulu, S/o. Late Seshacharyulu,^{aged about57} years Rl/o. H trto. t 1 -1-1 33, Opp. Sub Collector Office, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District

¶16

...PETITIONERS

¶17

AND

¶18

The Sub Collector^(Revenue Divisional^{officer),Bhadrachalam,Khammam} District

¶19

The District Collector, Khammam District,^Khammam

¶20

The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Rai,^{Bhadrachalam Khammam District} 4. The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal^{Secretary, Social Welfare(TW)} Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶21

Srde Seetharamachandra Swamy Vari^{Devasthanam,Rep. by its Executive} Officer, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction more^{particularly one in the natureof} writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the^{respondentsI to 5 in issuing land} Acquisition settlement Notice in Rc No. 1l1OO4|2O12^{dated.15.01.2013 for the} purpose of acquiring the immovable property situated in the^{schedule areai e.,} Rajaveedhi and Kalyanamandapam Road of^{Sree SeetharamachandraSwamy}

¶24

Vari remple, Bhadrachalam without paying justifiable compensation to the petitioners under Land Acquisition Act, 2013 is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay justifiable compensation to the petitioners

¶25

I.A. NO:1OF2O 1s(WP MP. NO:556 17 0F 2015

¶26

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 the justifiable compensation to the petitioners for acquiring the immovable property situated in the schedule area i.e., Rajaveedhi and Kalyanamandapam Road of sree Seetharamachandra swamy Vari remple, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, pending disposar of the main writ petition

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PITTA SRINIVASA REDDY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Gp FOR LAND ACQUISIT|ON

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Gp FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI CH. SATISH KUMAR

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.43148 of 2015

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This writ petition is lited praying this Court to declare the action of respondent Nos.l to 5 in issuing^Land Acquisition Settlement Notice in Rc.No. | / lOO4 l2OL2, dated 15.01.2013 for the purpose of acquiring the immovable property situated in the scheduled area i.e., Rajaveedhi and Kalyanamandapam Road of Sree Seetharamachaadra Swarny Vari Temple, Bhadrachalam, without^payrng justifiable compensation to the petitioners under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in^Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013^(for short "the Act, 2O13") as illegal and arbitrary and for other appropriate reliefs.

¶37

2- The case of the petitioners is that they are the^owners and possessors of the residential houses situated^at Rajaveedhi and Kalyanamandapam Road of^Sree Seetharamachandra Swamy Vari Temple, Bhadrachalam.^It is the further case of the petitioners that the^respondents

¶38

¶39

CVBR, J Wp_43 148 2015

¶40

have initiated the action for acquiring the land for the purpose of widening of the roads at Rajaveedhi and Kalyanamandapam of Sree Seetharamachandra Swamy Vari Temple, Bhadrachalam and accordingly, Iand acquisition settlement notice, dated l5.Ol.2Ol3 was issued proposing to acquire the petitioners, houses along with structures. It is the further case of the petitioners that the houses/buildings of the petitioners were demolished and the land was acquired as per G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 27.O3.2OIO without determining the compensation payable to the petitioners as per the provisions of the Act, 2Ol3 and without passing any award. euestioning the said action, the petitioners liled the present writ petition.

¶41

A counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.l, 2 and 4, inter alia stating that the Collector and District Magistrate, Khammam, uid.e Letter Rc.No.G/ 1542/2OL 1, dated 30.10.20 12 appoinred the Sub_Collecror, Bhadrachalam as Land Acquisition officer for acquiring the land for the purpose of widening and development of roads on eastern and southern side of main temple and the land

¶42

¶43

CVBR, J Wp_43 I 48_201 5

¶44

proposed for acquisition is in Sy.No.121 which is entirely a Gramakantam land and 26 houses are existing therein. It is further stated that since the land is recorded as gramakantam land i.e., government land, the State cannot acquire its own land and pay compensation. It is also stated that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.243, Revenue (Larrd Acquisition) Department, dated 27.O3.2O1O for payment of ex-gratia to various categories of encroachers/enjoyers of the government lands. It is further stated that after obtaining market value of land from^the Sub-Registrar, Bhadrachalam and the structural^valuefrom the R & B Department, Bhadrachalam and in terms^of G.O.Ms.No.243, SOyo of the land value and^{1O0% of the} structural value were calculated and decided to distribute the same to the families as ex-gratia. The District^Collector, Khammam, uide Rc.No.Ell lB49 /2012, dated'^18.12.2012 hras confirmed the ex-gratia and issued^proceedings a.ccordingly.

¶45

Considered the submissions of the learned^{counsel for} the parties and perused the record.

¶46

¶47

CVBR, J wp 43 la8 2015

¶48

This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 23.06.2Ot6, passed the following order in

¶49

W.P.M.P.No.556 17 of 2o l5:

¶50

"The case of the petitioners is that their lands along wirh the petitioners in W.p.No.Sg7S of 2013 were acquired by the respondents for the purpose of widening the roads around Sree Seetharamachandra Swamy Devasthanam at Bhadrachalam and when the petitioners in W.p.No.SgZS of 2Ol3 frled writ perition, this Court passed interim order on 2g.O2.2O13, which is as foliows:-

¶51

"However, all the respondents, in the meal time will explore alt possibilities in arrive at a reasonabie amount of compensation that is tiable to be paid to the petitioners, inasmuch as, rhe book value may not truly reflect the market value of the properties situate in Bhadrachalam, that took, around the famous temple of Lord Sri Seetharamachandra Swamy. Further, the learned Standing Counsel for the Sth respondent temple has pointed that aI the petitioners have been paid some amount of compensation on 19.01.2013.

¶52

In view of the fast approaching Kal5ranorsavam of Sri Seetharamachandra Swamy, I do nor interdict the proposed demolitions, but however, belore the structures of the petitioners are dernolished, .--appropriate^{videographyand photogral)hy must}

¶53

¶54

CVBR, J Wp_43 148_20 I 5

¶55

be taken so that the same can offer reasonable basis for arriving at ttre compensation that can be paid to the petitioners later.

¶56

I also consider that this is an eminently frt case, where the State Government, the Collector and Sub-Collector, Bhadrachatam, in consultation with Sri Seetharamachaldra Swamy Vari Devasthanam at Bhadrachalarn, must work out an acceptable package for offering a reasonable amount of compensation to the petitioners-"

¶57

When the aforesaid order in WP.No.5875 of 20 13 is not implemented, the petitioners therein filed Contempt Case No.989 of 2014. When the said CC came up for hearing, the Revenue Divisional Off-rcer, Bhadrachalam issued proceedings dated 25.O9 .2O 15 hxing the compensation @ Rs. 12,00O/- pe r square yard and in view of the said proceedings, the Contempt Case is closed.

¶58

Now the grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that they are similarly situated persons like petitioners in WP.No.5875 of 20 13, and as such they sought same relief that was given by the RDOⁱⁿ pursuance of the orders in WP.No.5875 of 2O 13.

¶59

The fact that the properties of the petitioners herein and the properties of the petitioners in WP.No.5B75^of 2Ol3 are in same locality and acquired for the^same purpose is not disputed in the counters tiled by the respondents herein and petitioners have also^received

¶60

¶61

CVBR, J wp_43148_2015

¶62

amount under protest. In view of the same, there shall be direction to. the respondents to pay compensation in terms of the order dated 2S.O9.2O lS passed by the Revenue Divisional Oflicer in R.C.No.l/ 1OO4/2Ot2, Lo the petitioners in this writ petition."

¶63

In view of the aforesaid interim orders, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall pay compensation to the petitioners, strictly in terms of the order dated 25.09.2015 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in R.C.No.t/LOO4/2Ot2, if not already pajd, r,r,ithin a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶64

7 . With the above observations, the wnt petition 1S disposed of. No costs.

¶65

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶66

SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶67

To,

¶68

SECTION OFFICER

¶69

t l|g .SuO Collector (Revenue Divisional officer), Bhadrachalam, Khammam District

¶70

The District Collector, Khammam District, Khammam

¶71

The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Rai, Bhadrachalam Khammam District

¶72

The State of Telangana, Igp by its priniipal Secretary, Sociat Welfare (TW) -^{Department.Secretariat,Hyderabad}

¶73

Sree Seetharamachandra Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District

¶74

¶75

One CC to^{SRl. PITTASRINIVASA REDDY' Adv-ocate[OPUC]} ;. il; d6 i"^{sni. cH. Snrtsn KUMAR,Advoca.teloPUCl} 6. il; d6. t"^{e pFoR socinr_WELFARE Hish courtfor the state of}

¶76

Telanqana, at^HYderabad [OUTI

¶77

g i;.'ic;'t,;-cp'Fon r_nrrio niourstTtoN Hish^{courtfor the state of} Telanqana, at^HYderabad IOUTI

¶78

ro i*.'iCl'i"-cp'FOR^{REiENuL,Higf, Court for the State of Telangana,at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶79

11.Tw.o CD Copies \ n-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010912024

ORDER

ytE S rA7 t-'
aP
31 0tc 2024 (a
* o€sP^TcH(

WP.No.43148 of 2015

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Onrr

¶90

1> l>1 4 t6 Cry'U-

Dhanikonda Mahalaxmi v. The Sub Collector (Revenue Divisional officer)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanikonda Mahalaxmi v. The Sub Collector (Revenue Divisional officer)

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

Chanakya School Vs The State of Telangnaa

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited Vs Competition Commission of India

Sri S. Govardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Bejawada Krishnamohan Vs Manupati Rajaiah

Dr Panthukala Srinivas Vs Sri Gyara Jagan

B.V. Krishna Polytechnic Vs The State of Telangana