Disposed

Nimmaneni Shyamala v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Mar 2025WP/7904/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged attempted dispossession of her commercial property for a bridge construction without land acquisition notification or compensation. Government stated award enquiry under RFCTLARR Act was conducted and petitioner's claim was pending at award stage. Court directed respondents to follow due process of law before initiating any acquisition on the subject property.

What the court decided

AI extract

Nimmaneni Shyamala Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³²⁵⁵¹

¶2

IN THE H]GH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶3

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH^{DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR}

¶7

WRlT PETITION NO: 7904 OF²⁰²⁵

¶8

Between:

¶9

Nimmaneni Shyamala, Wo N. Ramarao,^{aged about 67-years, O1q-..fo999} .{ife, R/o H.No.9-4-64, Baghavantha^{Rao Nagar,Vemulawada, Rajanna Siricilla District.}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its^{Principal Secretary,Rev^enue'(Land} Acquisition) Departineni, Secret'ariat^{building, Hyderabad T S.}

¶13

¶14

The District Collector, Raianna Siricilla^District.

¶15

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, cum^{LandAcquisition officer, Vemulawada,} Rajanna Siricilla District.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Vemulawada^{Mandal, Rajanna SiricillaDistrict.}

¶17

5 The Executive Engineer, Roads^{and Buildings Department RajannaSiricilla} District.

¶18

6 The Assistant Engineer, Roads and^{Buildings Department, Vemulawada,} Rajanna Siricilla District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of lhe^{constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Courtmaybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction^{more particularly onein} the nature of Rature of writ^{of Mandamus declaringthe actionof the respondent} no.2 to 6 trying to dispossess the^{petitioner from her commercial property i.e. two} shutters vide bearing H.No.2-44t5,2-4416^{along with open space an extent of 253} Sq yards and 1'11.22 Sq^{yards respectivelyin Sy.No.41, situated at Thippapur} village of Vemulawada Mandal,^{Rajanna siricillaDistrict without followingdue} process of law and without paying the compensation^{underthe land acquisition,} even the^petitioner name^{not in the land acquisition notification, videProceedings}

¶21

¶22

no. G118412022, dl 05.11.2024 for the purpose of lan,l acquisition for the construction of Hi L.evel Bridge on Moolavagu, situated ltetween Vemulawada town and Thippapur village and the^{petitioner property} not notified and not acquired and not^paid any compensation to the^petitioner, without following due process of law the respondent authorkies dispossessing the petitioner from her respective property as illegal. arbitrary and against the^principles of natural^justice and violation of Article 14. 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution^r>l lndia.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶24

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 respondents not to dispossess the^petitioner from her^properties i.e. two shutters vide bearing H.No.2-4415, 2-4416 along with open space an extent of 253 Sq yards and 111 2ll Sq yards respectively in Sy.No.41, s;ituated at Thippapur village of Vemulawa,la Mandal Rajanna Siricilla District without folldwing due process of law pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MOGILI ANAVENI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4 : GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondents No.5&6 : GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

¶28

HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE N.V.SHRAVAI{ KUMAR

¶29

\trrit Petition No.7904 of2025

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This writ petition is {iled to declare the action of . respondent Nos.2 to 6 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from her commercial propertlr i.e., two shutters uide H.No.2-44/5, 2- 44/6 along with open space an extent of 253 sq.yds., and I 11.22 sq.yds., respectively in Sy.No.41 at Thippapur Village, Vemulawada Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District (subject propert5r) without following due process of law and without palng the compensation under the land acquisition uide Proc.No.Gl/84 12022 dated 05.1 t.2O24 for the purpose of construction of Hi-Level Bridge on Moolavagu, between Vemulawada town artd Thippapur Village as illega-l and arbitrary.

¶32

The facts of the case in brief are that petitioner claims to be owner and possessor of the subject property purchased utde registered sale deed Doc.No.lO3/1998 and thereafter, released deed was also executed in favour of the said lands uide Registered Release Deed No.524/2OOO. ft is further submitted that respondent No.3 issued notification in Proc.No.Gl/84/2022 dated 05.11.2O24 for the purpose of land

¶33

¶34

acquisition for the construction of Hi-Level Bridge on Moolavagu, betrveen Vemulawada town and Thippapur Village arld includr:cl the petitioner's property in the :;aid notification without an-' notice and without fottowing du. p,o.."s of law. In, that regard petitioner has made representation.; to respondent authorities on O4.03.2025 and, 07.O3.2025.

¶35

Lea rned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has placed a copl' of instructions issued by Revt:nue Divisional Officer, Vernulawada stating that an award enquiry . was conducted zLnd a General Notice under Section 21(1) of the RFCTLARR ,,\ct, 2013 was issued on 31.01.2025 and published in village a1 conspicuous places and also individua-l notices under Section 21$l of the said Act have also been issued on all interested parties informing conduct of award enquiry on O9.O2.2O25. The said award enquiry was crnducted and concluded in the village. It is further submitted that petitioners have frled representations which was forwarded to Tahsildar, Vemulawada and to Municipal Commissioner, Vernulawada for necessar-y a,ttion. In reply, the Tahsildar srrbmitted that petitioner's land was not coming under aligrrment ald the said claim was d;sposed of by Offrce Memo No.B/09/2O22 dated 15.03.2024 and at present the said claim was under Award

¶36

¶37

stage. Leamed Government pleader would however submit that if the petitioner's land is coming under land acquisition, they would follow due process of law before initiating proceedings.

¶38

Recording the submissions of learned counsel on either, this writ petition is disposed of and the respondent authorities are directed to follow due process of law before initiating any acquisition on the subject property.

¶39

With the consent of learned counsel on either side, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There sha.ll be no order as to costs.

¶40

As sequel to it, Miscellaneous petitions, if arry pending,

¶41

shall stand dismissed.

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

SD/-T. JAYASREE PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To,

¶45

The Principal^{secretary,Revenue (Land} 4cquisition)^{Department,secretariat} building, State^{of Telangana,Hyderabad T.S.}

¶46

The District^{Collector, Raianna Siricilla District.}

¶47

The Revenue^{Divisional officer, cum Land Acquisition officer, Vemulawada,} Rajanna Siricilla District.

¶48

¶49

The Tahsildar, Vemulawada Mandal, Rajanna Siriciller District.

¶50

The Executrve Engineer, Roads and Buildings Dep;artment Rajanna Siricilla District.

¶51

The Assistant Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department, Vemulawada, Rajanna Siricilla District

¶52

One CC to SRI MOGILI ANAVENI, Advocate. [OPUC

¶53

Two CCs tc GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, High Court for the State of Telangana. [3UT]

¶54

9 Two CCs to GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS, High Court for the State of Telangana. IOUT]

¶55

10.Two CD Copres.

BSK

vBS

HIGH COURT \ \

DATED:1710312025

ORDER

1$ E STAT €
e
(o
o
J t ,ti APR zffi
I
t -sPAIr,$ ga

¶62

WP.No.7904 of²⁰²⁵

¶63

DISPOSTNG OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶64

.of4
$rt
&*w

Nimmaneni Shyamala v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nimmaneni Shyamala v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devarath Lalu Naik Vs Mohan Reddy

V. Kanta Rao Vs The State of Telangana

The Institute of Human Study- Matri-Darshan Trust Vs The Government of India

Aero Wings Travel and Cargo Agency Vs Union of India, rep by the Secretary to Government

Y.Hanmandlu, Vs The Joint Director of Census Operation

Mohammed Ishaq Vs The State of Telangana