Dismissed¶36

Parigi Ranga Reddy, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Apr 2025WP/18439/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-prosecution dismissal; writ of mandamus refused hearing; Article 226; Section 151 CPC; land acquisition compensation; wells and pipelines deleted by administrative instructions; Sy.No.156/1 and Sy.No.159/1; Nandimalla Village, Atmakur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar; PJP Circle Gadwal; Bheema Project Special Collector; parity with Award No. 19/2004 dated 28-03-2004; vakalat given three years earlier, no follow-up steps; liberty to seek alternative remedy; no costs; interim application I.A.1/2014-WPMP 23190/2014 closed; single judge N.V. Shravan Kumar; decided 07-04-2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution; petitioners granted liberty to seek appropriate remedy as available under law; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, to stand closed; no order as to costs. ¶36

Parigi Ranga Reddy, Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should be heard or dismissed for non-prosecution, given that counsel had given the No-Objection Vakalat about three years earlier and the petitioner had taken no steps thereafter. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

This Court held it had no other option except to dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution, as the petitioner had taken no steps in representing the case after the vakalat was given about three years earlier.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners were granted liberty to seek appropriate remedy as available under law; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were directed to stand closed; there was no order as to costs.

¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana (N.V. Shravan Kumar, J.) dismissed W.P. No. 18439 of 2014 (Parigi Ranga Reddy & 2 others v. State of Telangana & 5 others) on 07-04-2025 for non-prosecution: learned counsel had given the No-Objection Vakalat about three years earlier and the petitioners took no further steps. The petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 151 CPC, had sought a writ of mandamus declaring arbitrary the respondents' failure to pay compensation for 2 wells and 2 pipelines in Sy.No.156/1 and 2 wells and 2 pipelines in Sy.No.159/1 of Nandimalla Village, Atmakur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District (ac. 13-32 gts and Ac. 12-08 gts), deleted by administrative instructions on the ground that a separate award would be passed, and parity with beneficiaries of Award No. 19/2004 dated 28-03-2004 and directions in earlier proceedings (W.P. No. 2846/2002 dated 03-01-2007; '1287912005' dated 25-02-2005 (OCR); WA No. 1985/2005 dated 24-10-2005; SLP No. 3669/2006 dated 27-04-2006). No substantive adjudication occurred; petitioners were left with liberty to seek appropriate remedy under law; the connected interim application (I.A. No. 1 of 2014 / WPMP No. 23190 of 2014) stood closed; no order as to costs.

t^3255I

t I

I; F

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

¶5

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

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 18439 OF 2014

¶9

Between:

¶10

Parigi Ranga Reddy, S/o. Dubba Ramanna Aged 55 years, OccAgriculture.

¶11

Chinna Balanna, S/o. Yarranna Aged 50 years, Occ Agriculture. 3. K. Venkatanna, S/o. Karenna Aggd 45 years, Occ Agriculture

¶12

All are R:/o. Nandimalla Village, Atmakur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶13

AND

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary lrrigation Secrelariat Buildings Hyderabad.

¶16

2 The Chief Engineqr, lrrigation Department, Mahaboobnagar, State of Telangana. HyderaPad.

¶17

The $ilperintendent Engineer, PJP Circle No. I, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶18

4 The Executive Engineer.LA Division, PJP Gadwal, [t/ahqbgobnagar District

¶19

The Spepial Collector, Bheema Project, MahaboobnagaJ., - 6 The Sp6cial Deputy Collector (LA Unit), PJP Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶20

...RESPONOENTS

¶21

Petition under A(icle 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Dirgction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent authoritie$ in not paying compensation in respect of 2 Wells, 2 Pipe line in Sy.No. 156/1 and 2 wells, 2 pile lines in Sy. No. 1 59/1 which were deleted by way of administration instructions on the ground that separate award will be passed as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice, further direct the authorities to pay compensation amount to the Petitioners herein as was done in case of the persons whose lands and structures fruit baring trees and wells which were submerged and in respect of whom an award was passed bearing Award No. 19/2004 dated 28-03-2004 and

¶22

E-

¶23

¶24

further direct to follow the directions issued in writ petition No 2846/2002 dated 03-01-2007, 1287912005 dated 25-oz-2005, wA No. 1985/2005 dated 24-10-2005, s L.P.No. 3669/2006 dated 27-04-2006 since the petitioners are also similarly placed persons whose structures were effected by virtue of the submergence of lands situated in Sy. No. 1 56/1 admeasuring Ac. 1 3-32 gts and Sy. No.1 59/1 admeasgring Ac. 12-08 gts in Nandimalla Village, Atmakur Mandal, ft/ahaboobnagar District.

¶25

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014 WPMP NO: 231 90F 014

¶26

Petition under seqtion 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled in suppOrt of the petition, tfie High Court may be pleased to direct the 6th Reqpondent to pay the compensqtion to the^petitioners in respect of 2 Wells, I Pipe line in Sy No. 156/1 and 2 weils, 2 pile tines in Sy.No^.159/1 of Nandimalla Village, AtmEkur Mandal, lylahaboobnagar District

¶27

Counsel for the Petitionqrs: SRI HARENDER PRASAO Counse! lo1 the Respondent Nos.1 lg n: ep FOR tRRl AND COMM AREA DEV Counsgl for the Respondent Nos.i E 6: Gp FOR LAND AceUlStTtON

¶28

The Court made the follpwing: ORDFR

-H' -..t7

I rI

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIC^{E N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR}

¶33

Wtit Petition No.18439^of2OL4

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

Learned counsel for^{the petitioner submits that they} have given No^{ObjectionVakalat to the petitioners three} years back. It appears that^{thereafter, petitionerhas not} taken any steps in^{representingtheir case' As such this} Court has no other option^{except to dismiss this writ} petitioner for non-Pro^secution.

¶36

Accordingly, this writ^{petition is dismissed for non} prosecution. However,^{petitioners are granted liberty to} seek appropriate remedy^{as availableunderlaw' There} shall be no order^as to^costs.

¶37

Asa sequel, miscellaneous^{applications, ifany}

¶38

pending, shall stand closed.

¶39

SD/- A. PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 One CC to SRI HARENDER PRASAD, Advocate PUCI 2 Two CCs to GP FOR lRRl AND COMM AREA DEV, High Court for^{the State} of Telanqana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶44