Allowed

Pedda Mallaiah, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jan 2024WP/887/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 and section 151 CPC. The petitioners, landowners, sought a writ of mandamus directing the State of Telangana to deposit an enhanced compensation amount awarded by a reference court regarding land acquisition in Jogulamba Gadwal district.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to deposit the decretal amount to the credit of E.P.No.11 of 2023 in L.A.O.P.No.81 of 2015 within four months.

Pedda Mallaiah, Vs State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[³³⁰² ]

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:887 oF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Pedda Mallaiah, Sio. Seshaiah, age 54 years, 2. Narsimhulu, S/o. Chinna Mallaiah, age 50 years, J Chinna _Nars_appg, S/o Seshanna, age 53 years, 4 Gokaraiah, S/o. Seshanna, age 55 years,^'

¶10

Bheemanna, S/o. Seshanna, age 54 years, b. Laxmi, Wo. Narsappa, age 49 years,' 7. Mareppq, S/o. Karreppa, age 48 years, B, Harijan Ramanna, S/o. Chinthalahna, age 55 years, 9. Boya Ramudu, S/o. Ranganna, age 58 years,10 B.angappa. Sio. Hanmanlhu, age34 ye5rs, 11 .Thimmaiah, S/o. Pallaiah, age 52 yedrs, 12 .Amaresh, S/o. Gurulingappa, age5l years, 13 . Komati Venkat Swamv. S/o. Eeraiah.'aoe SO vears. 14 . Komati Narayana Sefu, Sio. Eeraiah, a-ge 44 years, 15 . Komati Srinivasulu, S/o. Eeraiah. age 45 years, 16 . Jarrjan Mareppa, S/o. Narsappb, ag'e 46 years, '17.0agamma Wo Mumeeranna, age 54 years,

¶11

17 Nagamma, Wo. Mumeeranna, age 54 years, 18, Ramudu, S/o. Maldakantaiah, age 58 y6ars, '19 Boya Hanumanthu, S/o. Bandaiah, aa6 60 years 20 Veeresh, S/o. Thimmappa, age 54 years, 21 Nagamma, Wo. Mukkeeranna, agd 52 years, 22. Komati Venkat Swamy, S/o. Eeraiah, aje 50 years, 23. Komati Narayana, S/o. Eeraiah, age S8-years, 24. Komati Srinivasulu, S/o. Eeraiah,^-ge 56 years, 25 Laxmanna, S/o. Marenna, age 44 y-ears,^'

¶12

26.Tayamma, Wo. Maldanna, age Sti years, 27 Tayappa, S/o. Marenna. age 48 yedrs, 28. Boya Goula Ramudu, S/o. Keshanna, aqe 53 vears. A{l are Oc-c. Agricufturists. R/o.^' n"ayapuiam Village, Ghattu Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District). ...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

'1. State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary lrrigation and CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

Ihe State of Telangana, B.ep. OV its^principal Secretary Finance and planning Department, Secretariat. Hyderabad.

¶16

The District Collector, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶17

The Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad, Teiangana State.

¶18

5 Ilq pq"qir.lDeputy Coilector (LA) and LAO, Jawahar Lift trrigation project, LA Unit, JLtp, Gadiauat, .tosurambi CaOwaiOLiirct

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particurarry in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents in not depositing the entire decreetar amount to the credit of Ep No.1 1 of 2023 in LAop No Bl of 2015 on the fire of the Additionar senior civir Judge court, Gadwar, Telangana state are arbitrary, ilegar, unconstitutionar and contrary to the Judgment of Larger Bench reported in 2005(3) ALD 233 and consequentry direct the respondents to deposit the same to the credit of the said Eps.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶22

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to deposit entire decreetar amount to the credit of Ep 11 ot 2023 in LAop No.g1 of 2015 on the file of the Additionar Senior civir Judge court, Gadwar, Terangana State, pending disposal of the main Writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI S VENKATESHWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR lRRl AND COMM AREA DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: cp FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 TO S: Gp FOR LANO ACQUISITION

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K.SARATH

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.887 of 2o24

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard iearned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation Department, appearing for the respondent No. 1, the learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning for the respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondent Nos.3 to 5.

¶30

This Writ Petition is frled seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not depositing the entire decretal amount to the credit of E.P.No.11 of 2023 io L.A.O.P.No.81 of 2015 on the frle of the Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Gadwal are arbitrary and illegal. 3. It is the case of the petitioners herein that the land was acquired by the respondents and an Award bearing No.43 of 2013 dated 18.01.2014, was passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,^.the Act, 1894') and aqgrieved thereby, the petitioners herein sought

¶31

¶32

SKJ W.P.No.887 of 2024

¶33

for reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, and the sarne was referred to the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, ald the sarne was taken on the hle as L.A.O.P.No.81 of 2O15 and finally, the same was disposed of by art order, dated 15.O2.2023 enhancing the compensation and the same became final. In spite of the sarne, the respondents have not paid compensation amount as enhanced by the reference Court. Therefore, the petitioners filed E.P.No.ll of 2023 in L.A.O.P.No.81 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, seeking execution of the decree passed by the reference Court. At that stage, the petitioners approached this Court by frling the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to deposit the decretal arnount into the credit of E.P.No. 1L of 2023.

¶34

Having regard to the above backdrop of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the authorities cannot take their own time to deposit the amounts, which are already enhanced by the competent Court. The inaction^of

I /

w.p.No.eet ors#zJ+

0 \

the respondents ln Payrng the enhanced compensation amounts in time to the petitioners, who are already suffering from the loss of their lands would make them to also suffer untold hardship and misery and run from pillar to post for getting the enhanced compensation deposited and incur expenses for the same. They will also have to .^incur additional expenditure for approaching the Court for seeking the required relief. With the raising inflation, the va-lue of the money will a_lso go down arrd the delayed payment of the enhanced compensation will result in the compensation amount itself losing all the charm and utility. If the petitioners or similarly situated persons receive the enhanced compensation within ttre time, they will be in a position to use that arnount in some other investments and get some returns over the same. 5. Having regard to the same, the Writ petition is disposed of and the respondent No.5 is directed to deposit the decretal amount in terms of the order and decree, dated 15.02.2023, passed in L.A.O.p.No.gl of 20I5 on the file of

¶40

;,"1

¶41

¶42

SK, J W.P.No.887 of²⁰²⁴

¶43

Additional Senior^{Civil Judge,Gadwal,to the creditof} E.P.No.11 of 2023^{in L.A.O.P.No.81of 2015on the file of} the Additional^{SeniorCivil Judge, Gadwal, as expeditiously} as possible, at^{any rate within a periodof four (4) months} from the date^{of receipt of a copy of this order' Thereshall} be no order^{as to costs.}

¶44

Miscellaneous^{applications, if any, sha1l stand closed'}

¶45

There shall^{be no order as to costs'}

¶46

SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTAN\RE9TSTRAR //TRUE COPY// sEcnS(oFFrcER

¶47

¶48

¶49

1 The Principal Secretary Irrigation and CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶50

2 The Principal Secretary Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶51

3 The District Collector, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶52

4 The Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶53

5 The Special Deputy Collector (tA) and LAO, Jawahar Lift lrrigation Project, LA Unit, JLIP, Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶54

6 One CC to SRI S.VENKATESHWAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

7 Two CCs to GP FOR lRRl AND COMM AREA DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶56

8 Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶57

I Two CCs to GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶58

10 Two CD Copies

PSK. BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010112024

ORDER

WP.No.887 ot 2024

1t\ E STAr(: o
(
q
v
g to,iAli 2024 C)
*
i
DE PAT C-,

¶65

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS.

¶66

N\ L-,<br>$

Pedda Mallaiah, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pedda Mallaiah, v. State of Telangana

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

Sama Raji Reddy, Vs The District Panchayath Officer

M. Krishnamachary Vs The Tahsildar

Konakati Shankar Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Sri Nava Bharathi-Ii Mahila Sangham Vs The State of Telangana

Bonagiri Chandra Reddy Vs The District Collector