Disposed

Narahari Satyaprakash Reddy v. The Superintendent of Engineer

Telangana HC3 Sept 2024WP/7378/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted interim relief staying demolition of a compound wall around a function hall pending a survey. The court directed the respondents to issue notices and complete the survey within three months before proceeding with acquisition or coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to issue notices and conduct a survey within three months; stay on demolishing petitioner's structures until survey completion.

Narahari Satyaprakash Reddy Vs The Superintendent of… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 I

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY, THE THIRD^{DAY OF} SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTIGE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:⁷³⁷⁸ OF²⁰¹¹

¶8

Between:

¶9

Narahari Satyaprakash Reddy,^{S/o. Ram Reddy, aSqd} .1J^{years,^Occ,:} Lecturer, R/o.'H. No.5-1^1-58, Nlyeem^{Nagar, Hanamkonda,WarangalDistrict}

¶10

Narahari Chandrasekhar^{Reddy,S/o. Ram Reddy, BankEmployee Rio'H'No} 3-7-366/1, Vavilalapalli,^{KarimnagarDistrict.}

¶11

Narahari Rajamma, Wo.^{Ram Reddy, HousewifeR/o.H No3-7 -36611'} Vavilalapalli, Karimnagar District.

¶12

Narahari Madhavi, W/o. Satyaprakash^{Reddy,Housewife R/o. H No5-11-58'} Nayeem Nagar. Hanamkonda.^{Warangal District.}

¶13

.....PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

'1. The Superintendent of Engineer, Sri Ram Sagar Project, Chintagattu, Warangal District.

¶16

The Executive Engineer, Sri^{Ram Sagar Project,lrrigation Department} Chintagattu, Warangal^District.

¶17

The District Collector,^{Warangal,Warangal District}

¶18

The Joint Collector,^{Warangal,Warangal District.}

¶19

The Tahsildar, Hasanparthy^{Mandal,Warangal District.}

¶20

.....RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of^{the constitutionof lndiapraying thatin the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith, the High courtmaybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ or^{order or direction more particularly one in} the nature of Writ of Mandamus^{declaring the action of the respondentsin} seeking to demolish the^{compoundwall of the petitioners constructed aroundthe} Marriage Hall known as^{S.P.R. Function Hall, bearingH No 4-409/3'S P R'}

¶22

Function Hall Bheemavaram Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District, without rnitiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Ac: and without conducting any enquiry as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Artickr 300-4 of the Constitution of Ind ia.

¶23

I.A.NO:1 OF 20'll^(W PMP.NO:9'195 OF 2011)

¶24

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to demolish the compound vrall of the petitioners constructed around the ltrlarriage Hall known as S. P. R. Function Hall, bearing H.No.4-409/3, S.P.R. Function Hall, Bheemavaram Village, Hasanprarthy t\4andal, Warangal District, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI A.PRABHAKAR RAO

¶26

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

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : GP FOR LAND ACQU|SITION

¶28

The Court made the following ORDER

¶29

'.. ::':.t,tix1tlii':*:rr -:.ri. i;a:,i. 'rl

¶30

I I

¶31

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

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO.7378 of 2011.

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶35

o....to issue an appropiate utit or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaring the action oJ the respondents in seeking to demolish the^compound wall of the^petitioners constructed^{aroundthe Marriage Hall known} as S.P.R Function Hall, beaing H.No.4-409/ 3,^{S.P.RFunctionHatt,} Bheemauaram Village, Hasanpatlhg Mandal, Warangal Distict witLtout tnitiating proceedings under the^{Land Acquisition} Act^and without conducting ang enquiry as illegal, arbitrary^{and uiolatiue} of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India...."

¶36

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

¶37

The case of the petitioners is that they are the^absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring 2993^square yards in Sy.No.145/A/ 1 situated at Bheemaram Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District, having^purchased the same under registered sale deed,^{dated 18.01.2OO8.It is} the further case of the petitioners that,^{after obtaining} necessary permissions from the^{concerned authorities,they} have constructed a compound^{wall encircling the said} property. The grievance of the^petitioners is that,^without

i i i

I ; i II

conducting any enquiry, the respondents have made ,:fforts to demolish the compound wall encircling the subject property.

¶42

A counter affidavit has been filed by respondr:nt No.2 stating that the compound wall constructed around H.No.44O9/3, S.P.R Function Hall, Bheemaram Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District, is coming under Kakatiya Canal boundary, where the canal acquired width is 115 M from the centre of the canal as per the survey plan. It is further stated that the Revenue Department Task Force and Irrigation Department Field Officers have verified the acquired land during 19BO as per the survey plan and Gazette award No.06/79-80, dated 22.O2.198O and cc,nfirmed that the S.P.R Function Hatl and the compound .,vall are within the Kakatiya Canal boundary limits. It is also stated that there is no 30 feet road available all along the canal and only inspection path is available for inspection of canzrl and it is not a thoroughfare.

¶43

Since it is the case of the petitioners that the respondents cannot exercise their powers to demolish the existing structures, without conducting an1. survey and * _^{u,ithout issuing any notices, to put a quietus} to the liligation,

I ! I

; ;;-: ----='
{

the respondents are directed to issue notices to the petitioners and conduct survey in their presence, duly taking into consideration all the documents produced by^the petitioners. If the survey conducted by the respondents reveals that the subject property of the^{petitioners forms part} of the acquired lands, the respondents are^directed to^follow the procedure for securing^possession of the^{same. The} respondents are directed to complete^{the survey withinthree} (3) months from today and till such time, no coercive^action shall be taken against the^{petitioners' structures.}

¶48

With the above directions, the Writ^{Petition is disposed}

¶49

of. There shall be no order as to^costs.

¶50

Miscellaneous petitions, if aly,^{pendingin this Writ} Petition shall stand closed.

¶51

¶52

SD/. N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO A S ANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

E OFFICER

The Superhtendent of Engineer, Sri Ram Sagar project, Chintagattu, Warangal District.

¶57

The Executive Engineer, Sri Ram Sagar project. lrrigation Department Chintagattu, Warangal District.

¶58

The District Collector. Warangal. Warangal Dlstrict.

¶59

The Joint Collector, Warangal, Warangal District.

¶60

The T_ahsildar, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District.

¶61

Two CCs to GP FOR IRRIGATION AND COIMM AREA DEVELOPMENT,

¶62

_ lign^{Court for the State of Telanganaat Hyderabad.} [OUT] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR LAND ACQU|S|T|ON, High Court foithe State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶63

One CC to SRI A.PRABHAKAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶64

Two CD Copies

SA LS s

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310912024

.1 (r r1 :'t E S f,i r(.
j! ({.
I
I
I,: ',lii/ iI]Z{ I

¶69

ORDER

¶70

WP.No.7378 of 2011

¶71

DlspoStr-tca of Fffi$ilC^{THE W.P}

¶72

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶73

,t
(r0T'
1\ Io "o

Narahari Satyaprakash Reddy v. The Superintendent of Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narahari Satyaprakash Reddy v. The Superintendent of Engineer

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

Perla Linga Swamy, Vs The Union of India

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

Mr. Yugandhar Meka Vs Union of India

Kanukula Laxma Reddy, Vs The Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Prabhakar Vuppala, Vs The Union of India

K. Kusama Kumar Reddy, Secad and 2 Othrs Vs Govt. of a.P., Revenue Dept., Hyd and 2 Othrs