Disposed

Smt.Burugula Laxmi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Apr 2025WP/11709/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking sanction of Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefits to petitioners declared missing Project Displaced Families for the Thotapally Minor Irrigation Tank improvement in Siddipet District, where the District Collector had not acted on the RDO's recommendation. The Court disposed of the writ petition with time-bound directions to process and sanction the benefits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to RDO to approve/sanction R&R benefits within two weeks and forward to District Collector, who shall pass orders within three months.

Smt.Burugula Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32s5 ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 11709 OF 2025

¶7

Belween:

¶8

Smt. Burugula Laxmi, Wo. llaiah, aged 50 years, Occ. Agriculture 2. Sri.Burugula Shyam, S/o llaiah. aged 31 years, Occ. Agriculture No.1 and 2 are R/o. H.No.1-4l1, Dacharam Village, Bejjanki Mandal, Siddipet Dist., TG

¶9

Sri.Burugula Mahender, S/o llaiah, aged 29^years, Occ. Agriculture 4. Sri.Burugula Thirupathi, Sio. llaiah, aged 26 years, Occ. Agriculture labour No.3 and 4 are R/o. H.No 1-4l2. Dacharam Village. Be1'janki Mandal, Siddipet Dist., TG

¶10

...PET|T|ONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

'1- The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,Telangana Secretariat. Hyderabad. T.S

¶13

The District Collector, Siddipet District, Siddipet TS-502 103

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Husnabad Revenue Division, Siddipet District,TS-502 103

¶15

The Tahasildar, Bejlanki Mandal, Siddipet District, TS-505 528

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 issue an 4ppropriate writ, order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of respondents more particularly the respondent No.2 in considering the recommendation proposal vide Lr.No.C/702l2O2O,dated.O1-02-2025 submitted by the respondent No.3 for approving/sanctiohing the Rehabilrtation and Resettlement(R and^R) benefits/amounts to the petitioners, who are declared as missing Project Displaced Families (PDF's) as^per the report vide Lr. No.Bl777l20 l7, dated.3001-2025 submitted by the respondent No.3 in respect of the lmprovement of Thotapally Minor lrrigation Tank online Reservoir at Laddabanda, H/o. Dacharam Village of Bejjanki Mandal, Siddipet Dist,TG , to till this date as highly illegal, arbitrary, bad, and violation of articles of 14, 16 and 21 ol constitution of lndia

¶18

and amounts to violation of principres of naturar justice an,J consequenfly direct the respondents more particurarry the respondent No.2, to approve/san ciion the Rehabilitation and Resetflement(R and R) benefitsiamounts to the petitioners who are declared as Project Dispraced famiries (pDF's) as 6rer the report vide Lr. No 8177712017, dated.3o-01-2025 submitted by the respondent No.3 forthwith.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the c:ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High court may be preased to di'iect the respondents more particurarry the respondent Nc.2, to consider the recommendation proposal vide Lr.No. cl702l202o,dated.a1-02_2025 submitted by the respondent No.3, for a pproving/sa nction ing the Rehabiritation and Resettlement(Rand R) be nefits/amou n ts to the petitioners n,ho are declared as missing project Displaced families(pDF, s) forthwith, pending disposal of the above W.P

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRt BETHT VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HOI{'BLE SRI WSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶24

Wrlt Petition No.l l 7O9 of 2025

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Questioning the inaction of respondent No.2 in considering the recommendation proposal uid.e , Lr.No.C/7O2l2O2O dated Ot.O2.2O2S submitted by respondent No.3 for approving/ sanctioning the Rehabilitation & Resettlement (R&R) benefits/amounts to the petitioners who are declared as missing project Displaced Families as per the report uide Lr.No.B/777 /2017 dated 30.Ot.2O2S submitted by respondent No.3 in respect of the Improvement of Thotapally Minor Irrigation Tank online Reservoir at Laddabanda, Siddipet District till this date and consequently direct respondent No.2 to approve/ sanction the Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefrts to the petitioners, the present writ petition is filed.

¶27

It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.l is the only daughter to her parents and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are her major sons. While so, in the year 2017, the Executive Engineer, IFFCC LMD Colony, Karimnagar has

¶28

¶29

addressed^{a requisition letterdated 25.09'2O1'"to revenue} of lands^{inLaddabanda'} authorities^{foracquisition} District^{for submergence of} Dacharam^{Village' SiddiPet} Thotapally^{Ml Tank OnlineReservoir' Thereeifter'a survey} was conducted^{and a joint inspectionreport lt as Published} wherein^{only the name of father of petitiorrerNo 1 was} mentioned^{as project DisplacedFamilyand rvas entitled for} Rs.7.6i^{Lakhs in terms of R&R Scheme ltis further} submitted^{that PetitionerNo.l along with her sons are} staying^{together with her father as a joint iamily since her} birth,^{ho'"r'ever, respondent authorities did n':t mention her} name^{or her sons' name in the joint inspection report for} Aggrieved^{ovt:r the same ' the} entitlement^{of R&R benefits} prcsent^rvrit Petition^{is frled'}

¶30

3 Learned^{counsel for the petitionerfurthersubmits} that^{the' Land AcquisitionOffrcerand RevenueDivisional} Officer,^{Husnabad has addressed} a cotnmunication^to District^{Collector , Siddipeti'e', respondent No'2uideletbet} subroitted^{that the} dated^{O</sup> 'O2'2O25^{wherein itis} Tahsildar/^{respondent No'4 submitted a r':portstating that} Econolnic^{SurveY^ the} while^{conductingtheSocio}}

)

$ t

petitioners have not^{given thedetails of the family} 'members who are living^{in the house'However'in the said} report, a tabular^{column was mentioned specifying the} details of family^{membersliving in the same house along} with their relationship^{and recommended their names for} providing R&R benefits^{by consideringthem as missing} Project Displaced^{Families and therefore requested the} District Collector,^{Siddipet to kindly approve the missing} PDFs who are^{eligiblefor payment of the said entitlements'}

¶36

The Revenue^{DivisionalOfficer' Husnabad i'e''} respondent^{No.3 has placed a copy of instructions through} learned Assistant^{Government Pleader and submitted that} : the petitioners were^{already selected as missingPDFsand} proposals were^{submitted byrespondent No'3to} respondent'- No.2^{throughLr'No'Cl7O2l2O2Odated} O1.O2.2O25^{and the sanction is awaited' Itis further} submitted that^{R&R benefits will be paid to the petitioners} o., re"eipi of^{sanctionby the Government and prayed this} Court to Pass aPProPriate^orders'

¶37

¶38

Taking into^{considerationthe above set of facts} and circumstances^{of the case, this writpetitionis} disposed of^{with a directionto respondentNo'3 to take} appropriate stepsⁱⁿ approving/ sanctiorring^the Rehabilitation^{& Resettlement(R&R)benefitsTeLmountsto} the petitioners^{who are declared as missingProject} Displaced Families^{as per the reprortuide} Lr.No.Bl777 l2Ol7^{d,ated' 3O.OL'2O25 and as per their} entitlement and^{pass appropriate orders within a periodof} two⁽²⁾ weeks^{from the date of receipt of a copy of this order} alrd forward the^{same torespondent No' lwho shall} thereafter consider^{the case of the petitioners and shall} pass appropriate orders^{within aperiod ofthree(3)} months.

¶39

With the consent^{of learned counsel on either side,}

¶40

this writ petition^{is disPosedof.}

¶41

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{applications, ifany} pending, shall stand^closed.

¶42

¶43

SD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY "^{1 DEPUTY REGISTRAR} //TRUE coPY// ,N sec,oN oFFrcER tl

¶44

,1_

¶45

1 I he Principa I Secreta ry. Revenue Department, TetrVnqr., Secretariat. Hyderabad. State of Telanqana, T.S

¶46

2a The District Collector, Siddlpet District, Siddipet TS-502 103 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Husnabad Revenue Division, Siddipet District, TS-502 103

¶47

The Tahasildar Bejjanki Mandal, Siddipet District, TS-505 528

¶48

5 One CC to SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU, Advocate tOpUCl

¶49

6 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Stitr: of t'elangana, at Hyderabad IOUT] Two CD Copies

¶50

PSKtls

it. 'ri!

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 104t2025

ORDER

WP.No.11709 of 2025

1tr E i 1;',; ,- -
t.tj ',t_
, i,
13 25 hPfl 1Ifi
Or'

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶59

/o 4.^za 1. //5

Smt.Burugula Laxmi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Burugula Laxmi v. The 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

T. Sukruth Kumar Vs The Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Smt. Bembadi Jangamma, Vs The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

Pammi Kranth Kumar Vs Union of India

Smt. Hina Begum Vs M/s Teena Enterprises

Gundumalla Venkataiah Vs The Union of India

Kunduri Ravinder Reddy Vs The State of Telangana