The High Court · 2025

1. SriV.Ramulu, Special Deputy Collector, ln Charge, Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Mancherial District, State of Telangana.

2. Kumar Deepak lAS, District Collector Mancherial, Mancherial District, State of ' Telangana, Earstwhile Adilabad District ...Co ntem nors/Res pon dents lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to dispense with the presence of 2nd respondent ie., District Collector, Mancherial before this Honble Court on 2010312025 in CC No. 168712024 in WP No. 8789/2014. Counselfor the Petitioner:SRl. BANAVATH NAGESHWAR RAO Gounsel for the Respondents No.1 and 2: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: ORDER i i I{ON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA CONTEM PT CASE No.168 7 oJ 2024 ORD ER: t{erard Sri B.Nageshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Governrnent Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing on behalf c,f the respondents. 2 Co molain o violation of he orders of this Court dated 12 .O7.2O23 oassed i W.P.No.8789 of 014. the Dresent Contemot Case is filed.

3. PERLISED THE RECORD:- A Th r orti n u da d1

7.2 2 in W.P.N of 2O1 tnD rticular oara No.6 is extracted h reu nd er: -

6. --aking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government pleader for Land Acquisition, the writ petition is allowed directing the official respondents to conduct a survey and identify the daughters, whose parents' la nds/stru ctu res were affected in the Sripada sagar (Yellampally) project (SSYP) in the four villages of the petitioners i.e., Karramamidi, Kondapally, Padthanpally, villages of Mar,cherial (Mandal) Gullakota village of Luxettipet (Mandal) Distrcit Adilabad. It is needless to observe that the parameters for extending the benefit for the dau3hter should be that she should be a major as on the date oF notification under Section 4( 1), that she 2 should be dependent on the head of the family and should be residing in that family as on the date of notification. After identification of the daughters, who met the above criterion, the authorities concerned are directed to see that the benefits of the package, which have been extended to the sons in the project affected families and project displaced persons, are also to be extended to the major daughters on par with the major sons, as per the terms and conditions of G.O.Ms.No.BB, dated 26.08.2010. The entire exercise of conducting survey and extending the benefits shall be completed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing on behalf of the respondents brings on record Letter No.A/21 /2OO8., dated 29.09.2025 of the respondent No.1 addressed to the respondent No.2, and contends that the directions of this Court, dated L2.O7.2023 passed in W.P.No.8789 of 2O14 had been duly complied with and the documents furnished on behalf of the 1351 writ petitioners through their counsel had been examined and out of the said 1351 writ petitioners after due verification, it came to light that 998 writ petitioners were not eligible for extending the R&R benefits and the remaining 353 writ petitioners were found eligible for extending the R&R benefits as the Major Daughters and further, the i I I I I I I I I I i I ! i t I I E I i I : l w J Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial had even submitted the proposals for the Rehabilitation and Resetttr:ment Scheme,/Plan for Rs.2,85,74,O00/- under R&R Policy, 2OO5 issued in G.O.Ms.No.68, I&CAD, dated

08.04.2025 regarding payment to the '337' said writ petitioners as detailed in Annexure appended to the letter, clated 29.09.2025, Learned counset appearing on behalf of the

5. petitioner contends that the respondent no.2 issued proceeclings, dated 09.10.2025 holding only 353 writ petitioners as eligible for extending R& R benefits and further held that the remaining 998 writ petitioners as not eligible without assigning any reasons and the same is illegal and not in true compliance to the orders of this l:ourt, dated 12.07.2023 passed in W.P.No.8789 ol 2014.. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submats that the respondent No.2 while lrassing the proceedings, dated 09.1O.2025 neither gave prior notice to the petitioners before holding them as ineligible nor communicated the reasons for holding petitioners as ineligible. This Court opines that the said pleas put-forth by the learned \ 4 counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner cannot be gone into in contempt jurisdiction.

6. Taking into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for land acquisition appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The contents of the Letter No.A/2t/2OOgt dated 29.09.2025 of the respondent No.1 addressed to the respondent No.2, in compliance to the directions of this Court, dated 12.07.2023 passed in W.p.No.g7gg of 20L4. .d) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at para Nos.4 & 5 of the present order. are available to the oetitioner. However, there shall be SD'- N REGISTRAR ,ITRUE COPY" OFFICER To, I One CC to SRI' BANAVATH NAGESHWAR RAO Advocate [OPUC] 2TwoCCstoGPFoRLANDACQUlSlTloN,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana. [OUT] )--.-rt,*,t,''--' ^'"T9 +' H&f, HIGH COUF:T DATED:2411012025 ORDER CC.No.1687 of 2024 , r cr{1 S C)(J t I B 2026 B2 * * CLOSING OF THE CONTEMPT CASE j i I I l It G -c"b &n. €