G. Thirupathi Goud v. The District Collector, Komrambheem Asifabad District, Asifabad
Case at a glance
- Bench
- WSTICE
Outcome
Disposed of
5 With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Learned Assistalt Government pleader for Irrigation, basing "ri\a I l l ') on the instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer, I & CADD, Irrigation Division No.3, Kaghaznagar, Kumurambheem Asifabad District, uid.e Letter Nc,. EE/ IRRGN/ID_ 3/DEE(T)/AEE/KZNR/SSO/M dated 28.02.2025, submitted that respondent Nos.2 to 4…
Judgment
Cause title
Petition, u-nder Nlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent authorities in taking up the work of digging of Ieft side canal of the Arkaguda poect in Babasagar Village, through the agricultural lands of the petitioners no.1 and 2 each admeasuring Ac.2-12 gts., in sy.no.59/14l A /1 and 591141 A 13, Chinthala Manepalli Village and Mandal (earlier Kautala Mandal), Komrambheem Asifabad District (earlier Adilabad District), without initiating any land acquisition proceedings and without paying any compensation, is nothing but violative of Articles 14, 19,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and also violative of principles of natural justice. Consequently, direct the respondent authorities not to proceed with any work in the agricultural lands of the petitioners no.'l and 2 each admeasuring Ac. 2-12 gts., in sy.no.59/14l A /1 and 5Sl14l A /3, Chinthala Manepalli Village and Manda[ (earlier Kautala Mandal), Komrirmbheem Asifabad District (earlier Adilabad District), unless the respondent authorities initiate the land acquisition proceedings by following the due procedure as provided under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20'13 l.A. NO: 1 OF 20'17(WPMP. NO: 9760 0F 2017) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances slated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to proceed with the work i.e. the digging of left side canal of the Arkaguda project in Babasagar Village, through the agricultural Iands of the petitioners no.'1 and 2 each admeasuring Ac. 2-12 gls., in sy.no.59/14l A /.,| and 591141 A /3, Chinthala Manepalli Village and Mandal (earlierr Kautala Mandal), Komrambheem Asifabad District (earlier Adilabad District), wilhout following due procedure as required under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. K VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGP FOR lRRl AND COMM AREA DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4:
Ms. T. SWETCHA AGp FOR REVENUE .Counsel for the Respondent NO.5: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE J.SREENryAS RAO WRIT PETITI ON No. 7915 OF 2OL7
ORDER:
The petitioners hled this writ petition questioning the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in trying to dispossess them from their agricultural land to an extent of each Ac.2.L2 gts. in Sy.No.59/ 14 /e/1 and Sy.No.59 / t4 /es/3 situated at Chinthala Manepalli village and Maadar, Komrambheem Asifabad District, (for short, 'the subject property) without initiating the proceedings as required under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.3O of 2013) (hereinafter referred to, as.the Act), and the same is contrar5r to the provisions of the Act and in violation of Article 3OO-A of the Constitution of lndia.
Heard Mr. K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government pleader for Irrigation appearing for respondent No.l and Ms. T. Swetcha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
Operative part
Learned Assistalt Government pleader for Irrigation, basing "ri\a I l l ') on the instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer, I & CADD, Irrigation Division No.3, Kaghaznagar, Kumurambheem Asifabad District, uid.e Letter Nc,. EE/ IRRGN/ID_ 3/DEE(T)/AEE/KZNR/SSO/M dated 28.02.2025, submitted that respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not interfering u,ith the subject property of the petitioners. However, if the land of the petitioners is required for acquisition for the public purpose, they will follow the due process as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. 4. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Assistalt Government, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject propert5r without following due process of law. 5 With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaleous petitions, pending if any, sha_ll s;tand closed To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.V.KAVITHA DEPUry REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 The Principal Sdcretary to the lrrigation and Co secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad- and Area Development,
2. The District Collector, Komrambheem Asifabad District, Asifatrad. 3. The Revenue Divisional Ot'ficer, Kagaznagar Division, Kagazragar, Komrainbheem Asifabad District. 7 The Tahsildar, Kautala Mandal, Kautala, Komrambheem Asifabad District. One CC to SRl. K VENUMADHAV Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR lRRl AND COMM AREA DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI / Two CD Copies 4 5 b 8 KKS KKS Yt- t HIGH COURT DATED:0410312025 \ ORDER WP.No.7915 of 2017 .:r ,7o q J ,J t i;i 0? L,l * Di spa: C\ret-) o( i'. -!' DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t-C^ ' Y^,' d.w
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 5 With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.