High Court · 2025

8. The District Collector, Khammam District, Khammam. 9. The Revenue Divisional ffircer, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. RR 1 to 4 & I, CT are anrended as per C.O. dt.4l3l2O2O in l.A.No.1/2016.

10. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, l6thagudem, Khammam District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issur: a order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus (d) Direct the respondents No. 1 to 10 to pay the exgratia amounUcompensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to each of the dependent family in lieu of the untimely death of their rninor sons by name Kandukuri Venkatesh, Kandukuri Venu and Ravula Narasinha Rao all aged 8 years at the time of death on 23'1-2011 at Kinnerasani Prr>ject (L.F. Head Sluices), Paloncha due to the gross negligence of the respondent:; (e) To direct ttre respondents to provide Luskar job to each of the dependent family besides. (f) Directing the respondents to initiate case, against the erring employees of Kinnerasani Pntject (L.F. Head Sluices), Paloncha who were responsible for the untimely death of the above minor children, under the provisions of lndian Penal code.

1.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO:4813 OF 2013) Petition ,lnder 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 to deposit the exgratia amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to each of the petitioners as promised by the respondents pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for thr: Petitioners: SRI S.MADAN MOHAN RAO GounseJ for thr: Respondent No.1 ,2,8 & 9: AGP FOR REVENUE Counset for thr: Respondent No.3 & 10: AGP FOR HOME Counset for thr: Respondent No.4 to 7: AGP FOR IRRIGATION & CAD The Court madle the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JTIKAITTI ORDER: 1 This writ petition is filed with the following prayer: particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus "..- to issue an order or direction more a) Direct the respondent No'l to LO to pay the exgratia amount/compensation amount of Rs.2,0O,OOO/- to each of the dependent family in lieu of the untimely death 9f thgir minor sons by name Kandukuri Venkatesh' Kandukuri v"t"' and Rawla Narasimha Rao atl aged 8 years at the time of death o-n 23.01.2O1L at Kinnerasarri Project (L'F' Head Sluices), Paloncha due to the gross negligence of the resPondents b) to diiect the respondents to prwidg Lg9kar job to each of the dependent family besides' c) birecting the respondents to initiate case, against ttre erring employees of Kinnerasani Projcct (L.F. Head Sluices), Paloncha who were responsible for tlre the unti4ely death minor children, under the of the provisions of Indian Penal Code and pass iuch other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem lit and proper in the circumstances of the case." "bo*,e

2. Heard Mr. S. Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Assistant Government for Revenue for respondent Nos.1, 2, 8 and 9, learned Assistant Government Pleader for I&CAD, for respondent Nos.4 to 7 , and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.3 and 10. 2 JAK, J W.P.No.3E6l of20l3 t.

3. Th,e case of petitioners is that one child of each of the petitioners, aged around eight (8) years, who were students, three of them, died on 23.0I.2O11 in Kinnerasani Project.

4. Lesrned counsel for petitioners submitted that children of petitioners went to hear the sluices at Kinneras,ani Project at Paloncha, while they were looking at tl:e unp:rotected sluices, all of a sudden, all the three children slipped from the sluices and fell inside tl:e Kinnerasarri Project. As they did not know swimmitg, all the three children died.

5. It is submitted that gross negligence of respondent Nos.1 to 9 led to the accident. That the Minister of State of Andhra Ftadesh visited the spot along with other villagers. It is further submitted that Minister discussed the issue with the Irrigation Department officials and respond.ent Nos.1 to 10 announced an ex-gratia of Rs.2,0O,OO0/- to each of the deceased families and one job of luskur post to each dependent family, and also promised to initiate criminal action against tfr) iespondent authorities. It is 3 JAK J W.P.No.jMl ot20l3 also submitted that notices were issued to respondent authorities, which were served on resporrdent Nos.S to 9, but there was no response

6. It is submitted that petitioners approached the Chairman , .egaL Services Authority, Kothagud.em, 'seeking a direction to respondent Nos.S to 9 for Passing an award for payment of ex-gratia amount of Rs.2,OO,OOO/ and one luskur post to each of the deceased family rnembers. That though notices were issued, when the matter was listed before the Legal Services Authority, the respondent authorities failed to fulfitl the promises. It is pointed out that on 22.09.2012, the Mandat Legal Services Authority closed the petition granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the proper forum

7. tt is the case of petitioners that State Government is vicariously tiable for gross negligence of authorities and having promised to pay an €unount of Rs.2,OO,OOO/- as ex-gratia besides one luskur post to each of t]re dependant families, yet the respondent authorities failed to take action. Hence, writ Petition 4 JAK, J Iv.P.No.386I ot20l3

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader fo.r Revenue for respondent Nos.l, 2, 8 and 9 submitted that under Apathbandu Scheme 2OL3-14', ant amount of Rs.S0,OOO/- is to be: released to the deceased family through bank accountrs within seven (71 days from the date of death. Learned Assistant Government Pleader invited the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.7, Revenue (DM.I) Departm.ent, dated 06.03.2014, whereby the Government of Andhra Fradesh announced Ern amount of Rs.SO,OOO/- to be paid for such of those deaths covered under ttre scheme. It is submitted that €rn €unount of Rs.SO,OOO/- each will be paid under 'Apathbandu Scheme' to below poverty .[ine families in case of accidental death in the family w,e.f. O2.IL.2O13 and hence, the amount shall be paid in a,:cordance with G.O.

9. Heerd learned counsels, perused the record and considere:d the submissions.

10. Petitioners are parents of three children, who were aged around eight (8) years. It is not in dispute that the three children were not aware of swimming and they -"'-''- 5 JAK, J W.P.No.366I ol2013 slipped and fell into Kinnerasani Project from the sluices when they visited the Project. The issue was reported in \ newspapers' As per the averments in the aflidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the Minister visited the spot and spoke to the lrrigation Departrnent officials and with other respondent authorities. It is further avelTed that an amount of Rs.2,00,ooo/ - as ex-gratia for each of tl.e deceased famity members and one job of luslmr post is said . to have been promised. Learned counsel for petitioners relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Kumarl ilFjMTI as. Sto/te of Tamil Nadu afr othq.5,l. The relevant paragraphs are as follows: "... 2. Six years old son of the appellant died as a result of falling in a ten feet deep sewerage tank in the citv of Madras. The tank was not covered with a lid and was left open' The appeltant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay Rs.SO,OOO/- as compensation to the appellant- The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that in writ.jurisdiction it was not possible to determine as to which of the respondents was negligent in leaving the sewerage tank uncovered.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case we set aside the High Court judg:rnent and direct that respondent 1, the State of Tamil Nadu '(tgsz)2scc223 >< 6 JAK, J w.P.No.386l of 2013 shall pay to the appellant to sum of Rs.SO,OOO/- (Itupees fifty thousand) with interest at 12' per c,:nt per annum from January 1, lgg0 till the date of payrnent. The amount shall be paid within six weeks from today. It will be open to the State of Tamil Nadu to take appropriate proceedings to claim tJ'e said amount or any part thereof from any of the respondents or any other arthority which might be responsible for keeping the sewerage tank open. The claim, if made, will b,: decided in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.'

11. Lerrrned counsel further relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Coutt on lts Oum Motlon us. Stcte of Hirrrorchal pradesh a nd, Ot,hets2 and contended that after discussing the entire c€rse law, the Division Bench saddled the liability. The relevant paragraphs are as follows: "1O5. Keeping all these factors in view read \rith the inquirv report of the Divisional Commissioner, the Board Authorities had the m:rior role and they have failed to exercise due care and caution, thus, are to be saddled with liability at least to the extent of 600/o.

106. The unfortunate students were on €Xr:q1sie, and the role of the College Authorities wa.s also important. They should have asr:ertained all flacts including the circumstances and other factors prevailing in tht: area, where they were planning to visit.

107. In Deep Chand Sood's case (supra), tht: school had arranged picnic for the students, 15 boys met with the same fate and the Court 2zon prct lztt O 7 JIKJ w.P.Na3{t6I of 2013 hetd that the school concerned is also liable, even though the school was not falling under the definition of State or instrumentalitv of the State as per the mandate of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

108. Accordingly, we deem it proper to hold that the College is liabte to the extent of 3Oo/o. 1O9. In view of the above, the State is also saddled with liability to the extent of LOo/o.

110. Learned Amicus Curiae and the learned counsel representing the parents of the deceased students have placed on record the material, which do disclose that in addition to Rs.S,OO,O OO I - interim compensation, the insurance amount, the ex- gratia by the States of Himachal Pradesh, Ardttt" Pradesh and Telangana and also tuition fee has been refunded by the College, the details of which are as under: awarded as Sl.No. Details 1 2 3, 4. 5. State of H.P State of Telang44a State of Andhra Pradesh Insurance amount Refund of tuition fee Amount (per student) t 1.5O lac { 5.OO lac { 5.OO lac { 2.O0 lac t4s,0oo/--tl.@!ac

111. The question is - whether this amount is to be ad.iusted towards the total amount of compensation? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons: LLz. This issue was raised before the Apex Court and other High Courts in the cases discussed herein above and it was held that the perks, fee, the insurance amount and other such amounts cannot be deducted. The tuition fee and the insurance 113. amount was their own money' The other amounts granted by the State Governments of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh as ex-gratia 8 JAK, J ll.P.No.386l of 2013 have no role to play. It is just the gesture of the State Governments. ll4. Applyrng the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and the other High Courts, this amount is to be excluded from the amount of compensation. 1l.5. Having glance of the above discussions, Rs.2O,OO,OOO/-, including the interim c()mpensation to the ttrne of Rs.5,OO,OOO/-, with interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from today till its Iinal realisation is awarded in favour of the p:rrents of each of the deceased students and against the Board, College and the State of H:imachal Pradesh in the ratio of 6O:3O:1O. 11.6. They are directed to deposit the amount after making deduction of t 5,OO,OOO/- awarded as, interim compensation paid by the Board and the College wittrin eight weeks before the Registry of this Court. 117. On deposition of the amount, the same be released in favour of the parents through payee's account cheque or by depositing in the their respective accounts, the details of which shall be furnished by the learned Amicus Curiae or the learned counsel representing the parents of the deceased students, in the Registry. 118. It is made clear that the findings re<:orded herein above are only prima facie in nature in order to grant compensation, as per tht: discussions made herein above, cannot be metde basis for recording judgment(s) in any civil suit, criminal proceedings or departmental pr<>ceedings. 11'9. Before parting with, we deem it proper to place on record a word of appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Arrricus Curiae, learned Advocate General, learned Advocates who appeared in this case, the Divisional Commissioner Inquirv Officer and the other officers, who have assisted this Court. 9 JAK, J W.P.No.3E6l oJ20l3 l2O. Having said so, the lis is disposed of along with. all pending applications, as indicited herein above." L2. It is not in dispute that the children of the petitioners fell into Kinnerasani Project and died.

13. The contents of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.10 are as follows: "3. It is respectfully submitted that the 3'd petitioner Ravula Rama Rao had lodged a complaint on 24.01.2011 with the Station House Oflicer; Palonch Rural Police Station, stating that, on 23.OL.2Oll tl:e petitioners sons by name Ravula Narasimha, Kandukuri Venkatesh, Kandukuri Venu have visited the Kinnerasani Project on 23.01 .2}ll and fetl in the said Proiect canal and dipd. In this connection a case in Cr.No.S/2OLl Uls. fia Cr.P.C. have registered on 24.Ol.2OLl on the file of Paloncha Rural Police Station, Khammam District. It is submitted that, the investigation revealed that, the sons of the petitioners accidentally drowned into the said canal and died. After obtaining permission from tJ:e Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kothagudem vide C.No.S/CrlSDOK/20ll, dt.O4.O3.2OLl the final report was filed on 06.03.20 I 1 before the Hon'lcle Mandal Executive Magistrate, Paloncha, Khammam Dist. ' 4. It is respectfully submitted that with regard to payment of ex-gratia to the petitioners of tJ'e police are nothing to do. The lrrigation Department is the competent authorities to pay the ex-gratia to the petitioners herein.

5. It is respectfully submitted that, after going through the contents of the affidavit, it is reveded that, the gth respondent Revenue l0 JAK, J It/.P.No.3861 of20li Divisional.Oflicer, Paloncha has addressed a letter tc the sth respondent Executive Engineer, lrrigation Department, Paloncha requesting to for payment of ex- make necessary €ur€ulgement gratia amount to each of the deceased family. It is also revealed that the petitioners herein also allproached the Honble Mandal Legal Services Cr>mmittee (V Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge) K<>thagudem vide Prc SR No.85/2O11 and sought for a direction against the Irrigation'and Revenue Dr:partment to pay the ex-gratia to them. It is surbrnitted that, by order dated 15.05.2012 the Hr>n'ble Committee issued notice to the District Cclllector, Khammam.

6. It is respectfully submitted that, the Irrigation and revenue departments are liable to pay the ex-gratia if anv to the petitioners herein. It is submitted that, this respondent has nothing to do payment of ex-gratia to the petitioners herein. The petitioners are at libertv to approach th,: semretent authority for ex-gfatia. Hence in vir:w of the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed against this res;pondent."

14. On a perusal of the contents of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.10, it is apparent that on investigat:ion, the children (sons) of petitioners accidentally drowned into Kinnerasani Project and died. It is further averred that the Irrigation Department and the Revenue Departmt:nt are the competent authorities to pay ex-gratia to the petitioners. n 1l JAK, J ttr.P.No.366l ot20l3

15. On a perusal of tl:e contents of the counter affidavits filed by respondent Nos.9 and 10, it is evident that the deaths occurred due to an accidental slip in the rear bund, resulting in drowning. It is also evident that safety measures like sign boards were not present.

16. The fact that there was enough supervision and maintenance and enough safety measures such as sign boards were existing is not forthcoming from the counter affidavits. The investigation of Superintendent of Police revealed that sons of the petitioners accidentally drowned in the canal. These facts are suffice to conclude that petitioners are eligible for the ex-gratia amount

17. As far as the question of one job of luskur post to each of the dependant family members is concerned, this Court is not inclined to accede to the contention of learned counsel for petitioners. The payment of ex-gratia amount for an accidental death, for absence of the safety measures, is one aspect, issuing directions for providing one job of luskur post to each of the family is entirely different. This Court cannot show such indulgence for issuance of any q. t2 JAK, J W.P.No.386l oJ20l3 directiorr for a job, children were minors, and t[e loss of dependency is one of the criteria that is usually considered. Parents rltr€ rot dependents on minors.

18. Reliance placed on G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 06.03.2014, is misconcr:ived. As per the said G.O., the amounts are to be paid in case of accidental death in a family w.e.f.

02.11.2013. [n the present case, the deaths of children occurred on 23.0 L.20ll.

19. Be that as it ffioy, the contents of clause 13 of G.O.Ms.Ilo.7 , dated 06.03.2014, are as follovs: "R:ople, who die due to drowning, also are covered under "Apathbandu" scheme, as it is an accidental de,ath."

20. As per clause 13 of the G.O., people, who die due to drowning, are sanctioned an amount of Rs.SO,OOO/- within seven da',rs from the date of death In the present case, the death of three children, aged around eight (8) years, occurred due to accidental slip and fell from the sluices into the Kinnerasani Project. It is not in dispute that no precautionary measures were found in place. Petitioners requested for an ex-gratia amount of Rs.2,0O,000/- as :$ \ \ o I t 13 JAK, J W.P.No.386l of 2013 early as on O5.O2.2O11 i.e., within a period of two weeks' This Court is of the opinion that an amount of Rs.2,0O,ooo/-bepaidtoeachofthepetitioners,subjectto condition that if any amounts have been paid earlier' the s€une shall be considered while a:riving at the total amount of Rs.2,OO,O0O/-.

21. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer, I&CAD, Irrigation Department' respond.ent No.S, before the Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Authority (at paragraph No'4, page No'25 of the documents annexed) that an alnount of Rs.75,000/- each has been received by the family members of three children' The amounts already paid shall be given credit i.e., those amounts paid shall be deducted from Rs'2'OO'O0O/- to arrive at the balance to be Paid'

22. The respondent authorities shall pay the said amount within a period of eight {8) weeks. It is made clear that no interest shalt be paid on the amount arrived at- The office of collector shall coordinate with other offices and arrive at the figure after giving due credit to the amounts received by t4 JAK, J W.P.No.386l ofNl3 the deceased families. Even though it is conte[ded that Rs.75,0O0/- has been paid by the contractor, this Court is of the eo::sidered opinion that the same shall be taken into account including any other amounts, if paid, tlle remaining amount shall be paid through the oflice of Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

23. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed To, sD/- /TRUE COPY// .SHANKAR ISTRAR OFFICER I

1. The Princ;ipal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Secletary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana

3. The Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State ot Telangana.

4. The Secretary, Department of lrrigation, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. S. The Exe,:utive Engineer, lrrigation Department, Paloncha, Government of A.P., Paloncha, Khammam District.

6. The Chief Engineer, lrrigation Department, Government of A.P., Erramanzil, Hyderaberd. T. The Su.cerintendent Engineer, lrrigation Departrnent, Hanumakonda, Waranga District.

8. The District Collector, Khammam District, Khammam g. The Reve,nue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem Bhadradri ,Kothagudem District. 10.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

11.One CC to SRI S.MADAN MOHAN RAO, Advocate IOPUCI

12.Two ccs to GP FOR HOME, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

13.Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

14.Two ccs to GP FOR IRRIGATIOI\L.qjoMM AREA DEV' High court forthe ' ' Silte ot Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI / 1S.Two CD CoPies BSR TKS lJil_ i.i HIGH COURT DATEDi ?.411112025 l,'t ..5 ORDER WP.No.3861 of 2013 tiifl& () * 2 1 [[8 2026 f,- \ \ DISPOSIT{G OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS I I l-$ .il"Y