Disposed

Jonnalagadda Giridhar Reddy v. Union of India

Telangana HC10 Mar 2025WP/7306/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, agriculturists owning sweet orange trees, sought a writ of mandamus directing Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited to decide their representation for enhanced compensation for trees affected by a multiproduct pipeline project. The High Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage, directing respondent No. 2 to dispose of the representation and pass appropriate orders wit

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited) to dispose of petitioners' representation dated 27.02.2025 and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, preferably

Jonnalagadda Giridhar Reddy Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³²⁵⁵ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Juris(iction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 7306 0F 2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

'1 . {gnnalagadda Giridhar Reddy, S/o. Janardhan Reddy, aged about 43 years, Rl/o.. .Komatigudem Village, Duggepally post, Tripurdiam- Mandal, NabonO'a District.

¶11

J.onnalagadda Ram Red_dy, S/o. l\ilatta Reddy aged about 65 years, R/o. Komatigudem Village, Dirggepally Post, Tripuriram Mandal,' Nalgonda District.

¶12

3 J_onnalagadda Dharma Reddy, S/o lritatta Reddy, aged about 64 years, Rl/o. Komatigudem Village, Duggepally Post, Tripuraiam Manclal,^' Nalgonda District.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

Union of^lndia, tep by its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, 4^{WtnS Shastri RajendraPrasad Road,Azad Bhavan Road, lp Estate} New Delhil10002

¶16

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Rep by its Authorized Officer, Krishnapatnam-Hyderab ad Pipeline Project, B.P.C.L. Hyderabad Telangana State

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 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 direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not taking any action on the representation dated 2710212025 made by the petitioners for payment of compensating as per the rules and prevailing value, as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the, respondents to forthwith take action on the representation dated 2710212025 made by the petitioners, in the light of the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W. P.No.938/20 24, dated Ost 02t2024.

¶19

lA NO: 1 oF 2025

¶20

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 direct the respondernts to forthwith take action on the representation dated 2710212025 made by the petitioners, in the light of the orders ot this Hon,ble court in w'p.No.g3B/2024, dated 05/0212024, pending disposar of the writ petition..

¶21

Counsel for the petitioners: SRI SUMAN KUMAR BALIJEpALLI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI A.S.VASUDEVAN,

¶23

SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: NONE AppEARED

¶25

The Court made the tbllowing: ORDER

¶26

¶27

) )

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRIIUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.7305 of 202 5

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.A.S.Vasudevary learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. With their consent, the writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶32

This writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayer:-

¶33

"to declare tht action of the 2,a respondent in not taking any action on the representation dated 27.02.2025 made by the petitioners for payment of compensating as per the ruIes and preoailing aalue as highly illegal, arbitrary and oiolatiae of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondents to t'orthuith take action on ihe representation dated 27.02.2025 made by the petitioners, in the light of the orders of this Honourable Court in W.P No.938 of 2024 dated 05.02.2024."

¶34

Brief facts in this writ petition are that the petitioners belong to Duggepalli Village, Tripuraram Mandal of Miyalguda Revenue Division, Nalgonda Dishict and being agriculturist petitioners were eking out their livelihood by raising horticulture crop (sweet oranges). While things stood thus, the petitioners were informed about laying of 440 Kms Multiproduct pipeline and optical Fiber Cable Network from Coastal import Terminal at Krishnapatnam Port to Malkapuram Village of Choutuppal Mandal, Telangana State and the approximate length of the pipeline in Nalgonda District is about 98 Kms. Covering 34 villages. Further case is that the respondent authorities without issuing any notice and without being any deliberation with the petitioners, informed the petitioners that they would

¶35

¶36

¶37

receive an amount of^{Rs.3,000/-per plantas one timesettlement,andthe} same would bc^{clepositedin their respectivebank accounts. Thereafter,the} petitioners on²⁷ .02.2025^{made detailed representationandrequested} respondent No.2^{to enhancethe amount towards compensationfor sweet} orange trees and the^{sameis still pending for consideration'}

¶38

Though v:rrious grounds^{are raised in the writ petition,learned counsel} for. the petitioners restricts^{his prayerseekinga direction to respondent No.2} to dispose the petitioners^{rePresentationdated27.02'2A25,in a time bound} period.

¶39

None aPp,:ared for respondent^No.2.

¶40

In view o[ the submission^{madeby learned counselfortl'Le petitioner} ancl without expressing^{any opinion on the meritsof the case, this writ} petition is disF,osed of^{directingthe respondentNIo 2 to} 'Jispose^the petitioners rePr'ssentation^{dated27.02.2025and pass approp:iateorders} strictly in accordance^{with law, as expeditiouslyas possible,preferablywithin} a period of three^{(03) weeks fromthe date of recciptof copy of this order and} communicate the^same to^{the petitioners.}

¶41

Accordingly this writ petition^is disposed of. Miscellaneous

¶42

applications, if anv^{pending, shall stand closed} No order as to costs

¶43

SD/^. T.^{TIRUMALA DEVI} qTANT REGISTRAR +qe: //TRUE^COPY//

S ECTION^OFFICER

To,

1 The SecretanT,Union *fi:",'31 "ffi xHSlg Eu::'f^{H:5ll "ffij'."?'ig"il'}

¶48

Shastri^Rajr:ndra New Delhil^-10002 Corooration^Limited'

¶49

2 The Autho^{-ized Officer BharatPetroleum} Hyderabad^Telangana rriEnnjpli^i.+vderabad^{Pipeline Proiect'B P C L} t \e

.-:t

One CC to SRI SUMAN^{KUMAR BALIJEPALLI, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶54

4.oneCCtoSRlA.S'VASUDEVAN,SCfoTCENTRALGoVERNIVIENT[oPUCI

¶55

One CC to SRI^{K.ARAVIND KUMAR, SC FORBPCL [OPUC]}

¶56

Two CD Copies BSR GJP

i:r:

t\ HIGH COURT

DATED: 1010312025

ORDER

WP.No.7306 of 2025

ltrE S f-q r(
)G
q
r'
202s ti
{i'
t
i,'J

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶65

WITHOUT COSTS

¶66

g
'l
2(

Jonnalagadda Giridhar Reddy v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jonnalagadda Giridhar Reddy v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kotrangi Bhagawanth Rao Vs Kotrangi Bheem Mera

G. Manisha @ S.Manisha Vs Smt. Dosapati Srivani

K.Yogananda Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Kota konda Pitchaiah Vs The Union of India

Kalwakuntla Sudhakar Reddy Vs The Union of India

Telang Baby Bai Vs The State of Telangana