Disposed

Nadipelli Naveen Kumar Rao v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC10 Sept 2024WP/9282/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-extension of Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefits 12 years after his property acquisition. Court disposed of the petition, directing respondents to examine submitted representations on R&R entitlement within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to examine petitioner's representations regarding R&R benefits and pass reasoned orders within three months.

Nadipelli Naveen Kumar Rao Vs The State of Telangana and… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

TUESDAY, THE^{TENTHDAY OF SEPTEMAER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:^92A2oF2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nadipelli Naveen^{KumarRao. S/o'- PurushothamRao' Agedabout,S5 years'} Cjcc.'gusiness,^{nlo'H.flo.i -i33, ChandanapurVillage Jellaram,Kamanpur'} Peddapalli District...,ET.T'ONER

¶9

...,ET.T'ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of^{Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary' Revenue Department} (Land Acouisition) Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

z. ifre olstrilt^{Colle6tor, Peddapalli District'}

¶13

5 iii" Sp,j""t ov coldctdi^{LIunii'singareni collieries companyLtd''} Godariarikhani, Peddapalli^District'

¶14

iil R;;;G^{blrision5ioni"ei,Manthani D-iy5;1on,Peddapalli District'}

¶15

S. fiie finsiOiar,^{Kamanpur Mandal Peddapalli. District'} 6. The Sinsareni^{corrieiiJs"bo*pi"v} !q'^{n'"p by its General Manager RG-lll'} - Ramagu-ndam, Peddapalli District, T'S ...RES.ONDENTS

¶16

...RES.ONDENTS

¶17

Petition under^{Article226 ol lhe Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith' the High Courtmaybe} pleasedtoissueanappropriateWrit,OrderorDirectionmoreparticularlyonein thenatureofwritofMandamus,declaringtheactionoftheRespondentsinnot extending^{the benefits under R&R packageeven after lapseof 12 yearsthough} the^{petitioners house bearing H No 527'admeasuring596 sq yards situated at} Sy.No.166,^{SingireddyPalli Village,Kamanpur Mandal' (ErstwhileKarimnagar} District),PeddapalliDistrictwasacquiredunderAcquisitionproceedings No.(81/1977108),^{Award No.3/2010, dt 01 07 2010 as illegal' arbitrary' contrary to} theprovisionsofG-o.Ms'No.68'dt'oS.04.2005andProvisionsofLandAcquisition Act' National^{Rehabilitationand Resettlement Policy, 2oO7 and violationof Article} 14 and 21 of^{Constitutionof lndia andcoqsequentlydirect the Respondentsto} extend the^{benefits underR and R package to the petitioner on par with the other} beneficiaries^{in respectof above Award'}

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under section 15'l 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 extend the benefits under R&R package in relation to the acquisition of petitioners house bearing H.No.527, admeasurinrl 5g6 sq. yards situated at Sy.No.'166, singireddy palli Viilage, Kamanpur Mandar, (Erstwhire Karimnagar District),^peddapaili District covered under Award No.3/2010, dt.01 .07 .20'10, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI TERA RAJTNTKANTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No..l: Gp FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2,4 & 5: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.3 & 6: SRt p.SRt HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SCCL

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

i I

¶23

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTTCE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY}

¶24

WRIT PETITI^{ON No.9282 of2023}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

.^{This writ petition has been filed seeking to declare the} action of^{the respondentsin not extendingthe benefits under} R&R package,^{even after lapse of12 years' though the} petitioner's^{house bearing H'No'527' admeasuring596 square} yards situated^{atSurvey No' 166' Singireddy Palli Village'} Kamanpur^{Mandal (erstwhile Karimnagar District)' Peddapalli} District,^{wasacquired under acquisition proceedings} No.(B1/^t977 lOal^{videAward No.3/2010, dated 01'07'2010 as} contra-ry to^{the guidelines framed in} illegal, arbitrary^and G.o.Ms.No.68datedoS.04.2oo5andtheprovisionsoftheLand Acquisition^{Act and theNationalRehabilitationand} ResettlementPoticy,2oo1andforotherappropriatereliefs.

¶27

The petitioner^{claims to be the owner and possessor of} house^{bearingNo.526,admeasuring596 square yards' in} Survey^{No.166 situated at SingireddyPalli Viltage'Kamartpur} Mandal^{(Erstwhile KarimnagarDistrict) Now PeddapalliDistrict'} The casE^{7-t tfr" petitioneris that in the year 2OO8' on the} requisition^{of respondent No'6 for acquiring 137'05%€untasof}

¶28

¶29

CVBR, J W^p _9282 _2023

¶30

land in Survey Nos.14, 15, t3S, 136, 132,165, Iri6, t6Z, 169, 670, 672, 673, 682,6g3, 6g4, 685 situared in Singireddy paili H/o Jallaram vilage, Kamanpur Mandal, Karimn;rgar District, respondent No.3 herein issued a notification for acquisition of the said lands in the year 2OO9. After hearing objections and after conducting award enquiry, respondent No.lj passed arr award, vide Awara No.3 0f 20ro dated or.ct7.2010, by mentioning the name of the petitioner along u,ith others and compensation of Rs. 16,56,066/_ was also paid to hirn.

¶31

The grievarrce of the petitioner is that the respondents have acquired his house property vide Award No.3 of 2010 dated OI.OZ .2OlO without extending the benefits under Rehabilitation and Resettlement package and even though he submitted several representations on the file of the rr:spondents seeking to extend the benelits under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement package on par with other beneficiaries under the said award, till date, the respondents have not l.aken any action

¶32

¶33

CVBR, J Wp_9282_2023

¶34

Considered the^{submissions of the learned counsellor the} parties and Perused^{the record.}

¶35

This Court,^{without expressing any opinion on the} entitlement of the^{petitioner,since it isstated that the} petitioner has submitted^{several representations seekingto} extendthebenefitsunderRehabilitationandResettlement Package on^{par with otherbeneficiaries under the Award No'3} of 2010 dated^{01.07.2010,duly enclosingall the relevant} documents to^{substantiatehis claim, this writ petitionis} disposed of directing^{the respondents to examine the sameand} pass appropriate^{reasoned orders thereon, in accordancewith} the provisions^{of the Land Acquisition Act, within a period of} three⁽³⁾ months^{from the date of receipt of a copy of this order'}

¶36

The writ petition^{is accordingly disposed of'}

¶37

As a sequel^{thereto,miscellaneouspetitions' ifany'}

¶38

pending shall stand^{closed.There shall be no order as to costs'}

¶39

¶40

SD/- N. SRIT,IARI ASSISTANT REGIS/RAR //TRUE COPY/I W SECTION OFFICER

¶41

To 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department^{(LandAcquisition) Secretariat,} Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶42

)

¶43

¶44

The District Collector, Peddapalli District. 3 The Special Dy. Collector, LA Unit, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District.

¶45

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani Division, Peddapalli District. 5 The Tahsidlar, Kamanpur Mandal Peddapalli District. 6. The General Manager RG-lll, Singareni Collieries Company [-td, Ramagundam, Peddapalli District, T.S.

¶46

One CC to SRI TERA RAJINIKANTH REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] B. One CC to SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SCCL [OPUC] 9 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶47

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

11 Two CD Copies

PSK.

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 010912024

ORDER

WP.No.9282 of 2023

,/ rtr
/"'
't
/O
:iIt
('i ![
,u
/
:-
"9j

¶59

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶60

Y+ aFlrl \ScDk!)

Nadipelli Naveen Kumar Rao v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadipelli Naveen Kumar Rao v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

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

S.K. Hussain Vs State of Telangana

H.K.Adnan Vs Union of India, represented by its Secretary

M/s. Lakshmi and Company, Vs The District Collector and District Magistrate

Chandragiri Venkati Vs Assistant Commandant/Ddo, Central Industrial Security

Smt. R. Vijaya Lamxi Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Minaaz Vs The Union of India