Disposed

M.N Upendra Nath v. The Union of India

Telangana HC11 Sept 2024WP/7969/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging alleged interference with private property possession due to underground drainage line laying by NHAI during road expansion. Court disposed of petition pending proof of loss.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to take appropriate action following due procedure of law if petitioner produces documentary evidence of loss sustained due to road works.

M.N Upendra Nath Vs The Union of India — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 7969 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

M.N Upendra Nath, S/o.M.R.Narsimha Aged about 65 Yrs, Occu.Advocate, R/o.1 -1-343,Viveknagar,Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, Telangana-500020.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways(NHAI), Transport Bhawan, 1, Pidiament Street, New Delhi-1^'10 001.

¶12

The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways(NHAI), Represented by its Chairman, Headquarters, G-5 and 6, Sector 10, Dwardka, New Delhi- H 0 075.

¶13

The Regional Officer, Hyderabad, National Highways Authorityof lndia(NHAI), I Floor, New Building, ASCI Coltege, Park Campus, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana-SO0 034.

¶14

The Project Director,, NHAI, Project lmplementation Unit, Nirmal/Kamareddy, for The State of Telangana, H. No.3-7814, Second Floor, Near Essar Petrol Pump, Old NH-7 Road, Kamareddy, Kamareddy Dist., Telangana-503 1 10.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularity one in the nature of the writ of mandamus, directing the Respondent 3 and 4 to issue guidelines to be adopted for laying the public Underground Drainage Lines insideMithin the Compound Wall Premises of the Petitioner herein by the 4th Respondent in the private property and direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to lssue appropriate notices for the Acquisition/Assurances or any alternate compensations to the Petitioner.

¶17

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

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 Respondent No.3 and 4 to issue guidelines to be adopted for to be adopted for laying the Public Underground Drainage Lines insideMithin the Compound Wall Premises of the Petitioner herein by the 4th Respondent in the private property and direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to lssue appropriate notices for the AcquisitioniAssurances or any alternate compensations to the Petitioner.

¶20

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petltion, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant Temporary lnjunction against the Respondents and their men to stop and suspend all the works and the Underground Drainage work, on the West-side of NH44 Road, Neighbouring the Petitioners Property in Sy.No.B112 and Sy.No.8213., Jeedimaila(V), Quthbillapu(M), Medchal- Malkajgiri Dist., TS., tifl the Aquisition Proceedings are Completed, as per the Law and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY East: NH44 Road(periodicat widening for Traffic Congestion). West: Defence/Railway(Acquired) property. North: Railway(Acquired) property. South: Bowenpally village Shiva(Sy. no. 228. ),Private Property.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. S RAM SHARMA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF tNDtA)

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents: MR. PADMA RAO LUKy RAJU

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.796 9 of 2023

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ^petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, seeking the following relief:

¶30

"....to r'ssue an approprtate wit, order or direction more parttcularlA otte 1-lh: ""r".n.^{of Wit of Mand.amusdirectiftgnrp"ii"iiior.s} and 4 to tssue gaideltnes to be adooted for lagiig ,ir. 'Watt"^{'p"iiX-i"aerground} Drq.inage Lines inside/ Within thi Com'poina )r.,ius., o1 *. p,etitioner herein bg respondent, No.4 in'thi i;r;;" p;;;;;g and atso dtr"ct respondent Nos.3 ond 4. So issue , jrprrpa"i."ir"r,res Ior the acquisition/ assurance or onu oltemate *^ii""Zri." t. ,h" p"rrrron., and pass appropiare orders.l.."

¶31

2- The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.0.36 gts., situated in Sy.No.Bl/2 at Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medhcal-Malkajgiri District. The case of the petitioner is that the said property is mutated in the revenue records vide ROR proceedings No.A/TZ19/02, dated 31.1O.20O2 and the revenue authorities have also issued pattadar passbook to the petitioner under the provisions ofthe Telangana (Rights in Land) and Pattadar Passbooks Act, rgzr and the Rules made thereunder.

¶32

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents, without following the due procedure as prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the National Highways Authoriry of India Act, 1988 and without even issuing the copy of the Underground Drainage Lines Rules to enable him to agitate his claim before the

¶33

¶34

aPpropriate authority, € over the patta rand ,o.ttt^{"to"'tlyinterfering with his possession} Drainase Lines,,",o.r]*1"";.' :#::.*r" undersround petitioner. -""rPULr,ct Premises of the

¶35

Respondent No.4 has filed a counter aflidavit stating that Nationa.r Highways Authority of India has b e e n D € developing 4-6 laning work, arong with fly .".." ,-r':::,rras and service roads' within the avairabre Iand of 25o feet. state uisrwav Division has handed over the tand to r^, Tll"l]rlmar tn the years 2000 an d d 2o0I and they are proceeding with expansio, ^, "^^":"" on of road in the right of way from ttowenpary to Mcdchal on NH 44. check_post within a length of 16 K.Ms

¶36

S. Mr.padma Rao, learned Standing C- ouns el for NHAI appearing for respondent Nos.2 ,^ , ..^.].,"'tr6to 4 would submit that the present writ petition is fired "..ur, for ravins of the Underground o..,.,.e'.*^{':,j::",,"] ,::T::"""} .te properties while proceeding to expansion of roads. It is stated th r '^". "**" at in terms of interim order passed by this a.,,,.. ..^ the Rules as on today in force are furnished to the petitio;court it is submitted bv the learned standing counser ,a", *,,.],"--:r' u"'ut of expanding the road from 4 rane to 6lane, the properties ort petitioner are no way affected and if any evidence is praced o, ,n,tn" s petitioner to show that his properties are

¶37

¶38

¶39

being affected, the respondents^{would take appropriateaction, in} accordance with law

¶40

In view of the above submissions and^{since it is statedthat the} properties of the petitioner are not being affected^{by virtueof road} widening, this Court deems it^{appropriate to dispose of this. Writ} Petition directing the respondents^{to take appropriateactionby} following due procedure^{of law, in case the petitioner producesany} documentary evidence to the^{satisfaction ofthe respondents} regarding the loss sustained^{by him due to the above said works} undertaken by the^resPondents.

¶41

With the above observations,^{this Writ Petition is disposedof'}

¶42

There shall be no order^{as to costs}

¶43

8 As a sequel thereto,^{miscellaneous petitions,if any, pending}

¶44

shall stand closed

¶45

SD/-V.KAVITHA

¶46

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY/i

SE TION OFFICER

Secretary ,The^{Union of lndia, Ministry o1 RoadTransoortand} Highways(NHAr),^{rranspoi'Hnawan, i, parriamentStieet' New Delhi-} 110 001.

¶51

¶52

Chairman,^{The Ministry of RoadTransport and Highways(NHA|)'} ' H;;;;;;;i"d 6y iis He'aJqu;-rte;s, G-5 and 6' Sector 10' Dwaraka'^New Delhi- H 0 075.

¶53

The Regional^{Officer, Hyderabad, National Highways Authorityof} - tnrlia(NHAI). t foor,^{Neii6uiraing, AsCt Collfue' Park Campus'Road} i'6. 5)'B;;i;i,^{H iits, nyaerabad, Telangana-Soo 034}

¶54

The Proiect Director,,^{NHAI, Prolect lmplementationUnit'}

¶55

r.riir*iilii.a-,eilv, i;;il;'staiJoi ieiangana' H- No 3-78/4' second F'r".i. rl"it EssaiPetroi^{iump, old NH-7 Road'Kamareddy'} kiriteOov^{Dist., Telangana-s031 1 0'}

¶56

One CC^{to SRl.S RAM SHARMA Advocate IOPUC]}

¶57

One^{CCto SRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (Dy. SOLICITORGENERAL} / " SFltiDAi Aoro"rt. ioPuct /

¶58

One^{CC to SRl. MR. PADMA RAO LUKY RAJU, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶59

One^SPareCoPY

¶60

Two^{CD CoPies.}

Gmn

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110912024

\ \

ORDER

WP.No.7969 of 2023

THE S r.{
oo 00 JAfl 2W ot','
o
o'+ -5.
PATcIIC

¶70

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶71

WITHOUT COSTS

¶72

OO 8b
N
Yr'-arX
'^.

M.N Upendra Nath v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.N Upendra Nath 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. Prameela, R.R. Dist. and Anr. Vs Prl. Secy., Infrastructure and INVESTMENT(IID-2) Dept and 2 Ot

Abood Bin Hussain, Adilabad Dist. Vs the Dist.Collector, Adilabad Dist., and 3 Otrs.

Dr.Penagamuri Chandra Sekhara Babu Vs The Union of India

M/s. Ramakrishna Teletronics Private Limited Vs The Assistant Director

Koti Raghunatha Rao Vs The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India

Mrs. Juveria Fatima , Zubera Vs The State of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary of Industries