Disposed

The Institute of Human Study- Matri-Darshan Trust v. The Government of India

Telangana HC13 Mar 2025WP/7830/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A registered Trust alleged authorities were marking and attempting road construction on its land in Sy.No.115/B, Pasaramadla Village, without notification, notice, or compensation. The court noted no construction had yet occurred and that the Government Pleader undertook due process, and disposed of the petition directing authorities to follow due process before any action on the land.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with direction to authorities to follow due process of law before initiating any action on petitioner's land; miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

The Institute of Human Study- Matri-Darshan Trust Vs The… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³²⁵⁵¹

¶2

HrGH^{cou Rr'?+} 11" Ell;lq'-:::-^{" * ^} J urisdiction; (sPecii'disi;;l

¶3

tuns^{onr rtrSrtIlB'I,rsH/?ftY':F'H*'}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE^{HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEN'V'SHRAVAN KUMAR} w^RI T PETITto N Nol 78^30OE2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

$i:[{ffi1l'gkHitffi^{ff$e ifi:'rysr""t-* ;..}

¶8

AND ^'l:lrEi,y."#W+#l$1t,ffi ^ --^+^^,^{r\Iinistry of RoadTransport} ?iJf :':"""*:tti{;x''ulwberni sunsaon^Rd

¶9

I I t

¶10

'^{u3:ilil,#?xil5:1fli.y;i:gl}tlll;B"i'?$3;o'br} ;";;"'""*o^{bv its secretary'rransportDepartment'}

¶11

t $:,:[3l""iiffJ#

¶12

The^{Engineer_in_chief, National Highways, ErrumManzir,Hyderabad-}

¶13

The^{Revenue DivisionalOfficer' Jangaon' JangaonDistrtct.}

¶14

The^{Tasildhar' Jangaon Mandal' Jangaon District'}

¶15

7- The^{PanchayatSecretary' PasaramadlaVillage' Janqaon tvlandal' Jangaon} District'

¶16

""RESP.NDENT'

¶17

Petition^{Under Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{statedin the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be} pleased to issue^{writ' order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of writ} of mandamus^{declaringthe action of respondents in making attempts to mark and} undertake^{roadconstructionor any otherrelatedwork rn lands of the petitioner} situated^{in Sy'No'15/B of PasaramadlaVillage' Janagaon Mandal and District'} without there^{being any notificationand without issuingany notice or without}

¶18

,==@

¶19

Paying cc m :e,r siation to t consequert / <tirect ,n" .:" ""t"'oner^Trust,as who irlegal and arbitrary and acquisitiorr crf land of ,h" r:::ono"nts to pay ""r;."' for the proposed undertake conrilrrction ,",,r.lll"':t ""0 ""it'"n t;;Pensation our rands and rities ror the ,,"r; ;;-;"J::":,".

¶20

l.A. NO :1 O F :20?5

¶21

Petitror t_/rlrjsp 5s61 xl.:I;l:::[]tTJ";:iff^{;Trx,;,:::tr:xffi} ton^*"n stop any kind of ":::"J; activity ir cluding marking' laying the rca(:. rf )o "onr,. lction activity o"ing the petitionr:r r; l : nd in 'na",.t, Sy.No.115iB s t,ar:d,,,,'n uO"n, of Ac.8-26,,.'-:j ::ll,i.,iilt;:: :; village' Jangaon Ma-rdal and District, as otherwise, th-. :)etrtroner ,.,""t""0'" .tst will suffer irreparable loss and hardrship.

¶22

Counsel for the F,e titioner : SRI GANTA RAMAKRTSHNA

¶23

SSlE?Ji.lE^ff;[it;ff$,ll^{: SRrGAD,} KUr!,rAR, DEpury 'RAVEEN

¶24

Counsel for the R,3;pondent Nos.2 & 4 : SRI M.RAMU Counsel for the Re:;pondent No.3 : G.p FOR TRANSPORT Counsel for the Rer;pondent Nos.S & 6 : G.p FOR REVENUE Counsel for the lle.s [)ondent No.7 : SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY The Court macle the l,ollowing ORDER

¶25

N s of 2⁰² 5 tit N^o. 18 w

¶26

s frled^{to declare the acdon of} This^{writ Petitionr} making^{attempts to mark and under@ke} resPondents^rn related^{work in lands of the} road^{construction or any other} 5/B^{of Pasaramadla Village'} petitioner^{situatedin SY'No'1} ct^{without there beinganY} J anagaon^{Mandal and Distri} anY^{notice or without} notification^{and withoutissulrrg} oner^{Trustas illegal and} paying^{compensadon to ttre petiti} respondents^{to pay} arbitrary^{and consequently direct} sition^{o[ land of the} compensation^{for ttre proposed acqul} petitioner^{until suctr time;not to mark the Petitioner's land} and^{undertake construction activities for the proposed by-} pass road.

¶27

The^{facts of the casein briefare that petitioneris a} Trust registered^{uide registrationNo' 1O36 dated} 28.02.1982^{and is the absolute owner and possessor of} land admeasuring^{Ac'8-26 gts'' atSy'No'115/B'} uide Pasaramadla^Village' Janagaon^District Doc.No.124711983^dated 19.09. 1983;^{Doc.No.332/1987}

)

datr:'d i)9.63.1987 and Doc.j o'l9o/ 1981'dated 10.o1.1987 It is .:,rr:mitted that petitio par_t; : da r passbook ,"o.^{"tTrust has 6rot: ssuedwith} n"t things strod thus, res p(rn Jent Nos.2 to 7 were , seen entering inlo .re lalds of th" p(-'titirtners and were making plans to urrden.ake some con;t, uctron activities. In . that regard, peutirtner has subrnr :tc J a representation on 17.02.2025 to Revenue Divisioirzrr Officer marking a copy'to National Higbway Authon ti,:; Thereafter, on O3.O3.2O25 respondents have again e n r r.r.ed into petitioner,s land aJong wit.h J CB and other nra,-.ilnery. petitioner has again submitl_ed ra. follow up leltt r to the RDO and requested to stop all the constr,.1( tr rr activities. euestioning the same, r-he cresent writ pt I i r, r r is filed .

¶32

l. -i ;r-ne d Assistalt Government pleader for Land Acquisrtr r,' rvould submit that +retitioner is only appreh:r rcl rr_g the acquisition however, under,-ake s that responrlt r I .rr:thorities would follow due proc()ss of law before ir- tr t rng an_v acquisition in respect of 1;etit ioner's land

¶33

.+-^{j#ai€i=i_+{.d--'i':i}sl

¶34

¶35

¶36

Since^{the Petitioneris onlY aPPrehendingthe} acquisition^{and till date'no constructions have taken Place} Assistant in the Pe^{titioner'shnd,and also leamed} Government^{Pleaderundeftakesto follow due Processof} law,^{this Court deems itapProPriateto disPoseof the writ} i. iili"r,'ail^{aiitiioritie"to follow} petition^{with a directron} due Process^{of law beforeinitiatiriganY action on the} petitioner's^land'

¶37

5 Recording^{the submissions of learned counsel on} either^{side,this writ Petition rsdisPosedof'}

¶38

Pending'^{if anY'} 'shall stand Miscellaneous^Petitions' closed.^{However' there shall be no order as to costs}

¶39

r:r"{it-''l"lt?[iF

¶40

/TTRUE^GOPY//

¶41

SECTION^OFFICER

¶42

To of lndia,^{Ministry of} Transport^and 1. The Secretary,^Government ew Delhi 2. HisThehways Chairman,^{TransPoNational} rt Bhavan^HighwaYs -1, Parliament^{AuthoritY Street'of lndia (NHAI),G5 and 6'} Dab rigungaon,^{RdSector 10' Dwaraka Delhi}

¶43

1. The Secretary'^{Transport DePartment'Secretariat,State of Telangana at} Hvclerabad. .rnal Hiqhways, Errum Manzil, Hyderabad.

¶44

4 il:::::rus;?ji'j;i3[ffi^{: j,ig#,:l,"s'onDistrict}

¶45

6 il: ;;ila^{;",", I ) i} i'^{o n t't uno ul Ja ns aonDi stri ct'} 7 vitlage'^{JangaonMandal' Jangaon} rhe^{panchavat secretary,} "Ji''iii"it' District. ( $r

¶46

8 Iyo C I's to c.p FOR F ,., Hydr-:r.; b 1 J lourl "''^RE,ENUE,High Court for^.the s;tate of Telangana at

¶47

\ ,d[*d;ilil:::::ffi'j ",,"n"n" *,,

¶48

igllfllli ijF

¶49

.'^{,X,?,i,;1,.11;fft} Pi"?3,*"EEi;;ijilX"J,^{sol,c,roR( jEN} oF

¶50

li.i,i5 85 5:;nt^{r pneoLep REDD',} Advocate (opuc)

SA GJP

i )

HIGH CoLrRT

DATED:'litA3t2O2S

ORDER

WP.No.Zliit} of 202i

o B -'\ r\t .> ,- /4: a^
(
c (f,(
2 5 ,t tH '025
az
*

¶61

DISPOSIi|G OF THE W.p WITHOUT COSTS. la 7t[r --+^_,-- ' \

The Institute of Human Study- Matri-Darshan Trust v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Institute of Human Study- Matri-Darshan Trust v. The Government of India

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

Battu Ramesh Vs State of Telangana

Srini Sattva Solutions Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I

M/s Madhucon Projects Limited Vs The Authority under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act

Devarath Lalu Naik Vs Mohan Reddy

V. Kanta Rao Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Arth Designbuild India Private Ltd. Vs The Union of India