Dismissed

Alam Ramesh, v. The Special Collector (L.a)

Telangana HC4 Apr 2025WP/14003/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-payment of compensation for small tanks (kunta) lost during land acquisition. The court held that disputed questions of fact regarding the existence of the tanks could not be decided on affidavits and stayed the matter for appropriate proceedings. quality ok

What did the court decide?

None granted. The writ petition for declaration and directions for compensation was dismissed; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Alam Ramesh, Vs The Special Collector (L.a) — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^325s ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STA E OF TELANGANA AT HYDERA AD (Special Original J risdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY,THE FOURTH AY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESEN

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIC N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1 03 0F 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Alam Ramesh, S/o. Late Pochaiah,^{Age26 years, Occ Agriculture} 2.| Portheti Satyam, S/o Late Erraiah,^Age 0 years, Occ Agriculture Reddy lt/arakka, D/o Bapu, Age 35^yea ,^{Occ Agriculture}

¶9

All are Fl/o. Jakkepally village, Vemana lly Mandal, Adilabad District.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . The Special Collector (L.A), SRSP, S P, JCRLIS and Pranahita, Tarnaka, Hvderabad.

¶13

The Special Deputy Collector Cum evenue Divisional, Officer, Chevella Srujala Sravanti Pranahita Project ( r. .Ambedkar Project) Office, Near Nandini Hospital, Mancherial, Adilaba d istrict.

¶14

The District Collector, Adilabad,^Adilaba District. 4. The Executive Engineer, I and CADD, .P.Rao Project Division, Bellampally, Adilabad District.

¶15

The Govt. of A.P. rep. by^{its Prl. Secre} ry,^{Revenue Dept (Land Acquisition)} Secretariat, Hyd.

¶16

R5 is impleaded as^per C.O. dt. 29-10^{13 in WPMP 35585 of 20'13}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the^Co titution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled} therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, ore particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the the^respondents1 to 3 in not paying the compensation to the petitioners with regard to the loss^of mall tanks (kunta), situated in their respective lands in Sy.No.157114,^147118, 138, situated at Jakkepally village shivar, Vemanpally mandal,^AdilabadDis rict, which were acquired for the purpose of construction of Pranahita Chevella Sujala Sravanthi^(Dr B.R.Ambedkar) Project, as illegal,^arbitrary, buse of process of law, violation of principles of natural^justice and contrary to t e provisions of Land Acquisition Act

¶19

consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the compensation to the petitioners for the acquisition of small tanks situated in their respective lands in the interest of^justice

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 17111 OF 20'13)

¶21

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 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders'on the representations submitted by the petitioners for payment of compensation for the acquisition of small tanks (kunta) situated in their respective lands at Jakkepally Village, Vemanapally I/andal, Adilabad District in the interest of^justice pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. S SURENDER REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

'^{'.aif&1,€'f,}

¶26

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{N.V.SHRAVANKUMAR}

¶27

Writ Petition No.1 OO3 of 2O13

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The petitioners are aggrle ed by the^{action ofthe} respondents 1 to 3 in not PaYing^{he compensation with regard} to the loss of small tanks^kun situated in their respective lands in Sy.No.157 /14,¹⁴⁷ 11,8, 138 situated at Jakkepally village shivar, Vemanpally mand Adilabad District^(subject lands) which were acquired for t e^{purpose of construction of} Pranahita Chevella Sujala Sravan i Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Project.

¶30

Heard learned counsel^fo the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader^[o Lancl Acquisrtion appeartng on behalf of respondents

¶31

The case of the^petitione s^is that^{their fathers were} assigned with the subject lands the year 1975 and pattas were given to them and thel' h ve developed the lands^by constructing kuntas (small tan s) in the lands. The^then Government of Andhra Pradesh in nded to acquire the lands in Vemanapally Village for the pur ose of the construction^of Chevella Sujala Sravanti Pranahi Project and in pursuance of

¶32

¶33

..,,.. the same, respondent No.1 issued draft rrotification in the month of December, 2O11. Subsequentiy, respoltdent No.4 conducted survey and found that the kuntas are existing in the lands of the pctitioners ald they are entitled for payment of compe neatio. ror the kuntas. It is further submittea that aJter acquiring the lalds, respondent No.2 determined compensation for lands, opcn wel1s and bore wells but failecl to dctermine the compcrrsation for the loss of small tanks. As per tl,rc report of responcienl No.4, tire petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs.2,57,O00/ , IRs.2,51,6i2l- and Rs.2, 20,OOo/_ for the loss ot kuntas, horic-ver, the respondents are not paying the same.

¶34

Petltioncrs appro;rched respondent No.2 and submitted individual representations on 30.03.2O13 ar_rd requested to pav the compensation for the small tanl<s also. Hou.ever, no orders were passed on l he said rcpresentations. euestioning the same. the prcscnt \.rit petition is filed.

¶35

A counter affidavit has been filed b-t. Special Deputy collector (Land Acquisition), Unit II, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Pranahitha Chevella Sujala Sravanthi project. Mancherial i.e., respondent No.2 stating that the petitioners n.ere already paid

¶36

\ \

¶37

.:.,*^*r/
1?w r
'-. /

¶38

with exgratia as per eligibili[, per classification of the land and if they have got any griev ce against the exgratia paid, they have to approach a com tent civil Court. It is further submitted that subject lands a assigned lands and they are coming under acquisition for onstruction of Gravity CanaJ under Package No.IV and that the field staff has conducted survey and recorded actuai po ition of the lands i.e., crops raised on the fields, trees and permanent structures in the lands. As per report the catego of the lands are classified as Category 'C' and it is observed t there are no bore wells/open wells/tanks arrd other permane t structures in the lands. It is further submitted that as per th stirvey, the exgrat ia proposa-ls have been prepared treating t e above lands as dry under Category 'C' as per G.O.Ms No.i35, I&CAD(Pw R&R-A2) Department dated 30.1 l.2OO4 a d exgratia has been paid to the petitioners on 23 .O2.2O 13 an 14.03.20 13. It is further submitted that Executive Engi eer, I&CADD, PP.Rao Project Division, Bellampa1ly had quant 1ed for the loss of small tanks and there are no tanks in the s bject lands, and payments of exgratia for tanks does not ar se and accordingly prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

¶39

¶40

¶41

It is pertinent to note that petitioner in hrs

¶42

representatior-r dated 30.03.2013 stated that on his request, thc Survey Deparlment has inspected the kunta ancl recommendecl for valuation. The authorities, after valuation, have fixed thc value of kunta for arl amount of Rs.2,20,000/-. However, a cop,v of the v:rluatron report has not been placed in this u,rit petition. That apart, there are disputed questions of fact lvith regard to the very existence of l<unta u,hich cannot be decidecl on affidai,it. Therefor c, thc prayer sought for in the prescnt rr.rit petition cannot bc granted.

¶43

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismrssed.

¶44

I\4isccllaneous pctitions, if any, pending in this \'rit

¶45

petition shall stand closed. No costs.

¶46

SD/-A. SRI NIVASA REDDY NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// i \i::l"t SECTION OFFICER

¶47

To,

¶48

One CC to SRl. S. SURENDER^{REDDY, Advocate} IOPUC] 2. fwo CCs to GP FOR LAND ACOUISITION ,High^{Courtfor the State of} Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies

BM TKS

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410412025

ORDER

l
o R '1 H t A r €
o'(
lit, J 1 4 AuE zffi :
.1
;
,. J.
,'& ,/
.
o
' t- -- --aa-,

¶54

WP.No.14003 of 2013

¶55

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

p
/.4
<br>/5/ ?,/1 ;

Alam Ramesh, v. The Special Collector (L.a)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alam Ramesh, v. The Special Collector (L.a)

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

Aleti Ramaswamy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Addeboina Guru Sekhar Vs Shri G v Ramesh

Sri.Kurra Vinay Vs Sri Ila Tripathi

Credible Engineering Construction Limited Vs Union of India

Akula Krishna Rao, Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Ummareddy Bharathi Vs State of Telangana