Sri Balaji venkateswara swamy Vari Devastanam v. 1. The Government of Telangana

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 to pay the compensation to the petitioner temple land to an extent of Ac.60-00 in s.No. 39 situated at Annadaivam Village belonging to the Petitioner Temple which was taken away by the Respondent Authorities for laying the road from AnnapureddipaIi to chapararapa[i ViIage forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH. SATISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1, 2,4 & 5: SRI R. pOOLSINGH NAIK, AGP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI K. PRADEEp REDDy, STANDING COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8: Gp FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent: SRI BHUKYA MANGILAL NAtK GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: ORDER -*}ry:Y ,,1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR ORDER w. P. No.2332O of2025 Heard the Iearned counsel Sri C H. Satish Kumar for the petitioncr, learned Assistant (iovcrument Pleader Sri R.Poolsingh Naik for lloads and Buildings for the respondents No. l, 2, 4 and 5, learned Standing Counsel Sri K.Pradeep Rcddy appearing for the respondent No.6 and thc Iearned Government Pleader for Endowrnents Sri Bhukya Mangilal Naik, zrnd peruscd the material made available on [he record.

2. The petitioner is aggricvccl b)' the acLiol-r of the rcspondents in not paying cornpensation to the land to an extent of Acs.60 OO in Sy.No.39 situated at Annadaivam village belonging to the petitioner- temple which was taken away by the respondent authorities for laying tl-rc road from Annapurcdd ipalli lo Chaparalapalli viilage, rvith a 'consequential prayer to direct Lhe rcspondents to take sleps for payment of compensation lo the petitioner-temple for the above said land by taking into consicleration the orders passed in W.A. No.86O oi 2009 dated 23.O2.2022.

3. The petitioner is Sri Balaji Venkateswara Swamy Vari Devastanam is represcnted by its Executive Officer.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-tcmple has got land to an extent of Acs.1997 in Sy.No.39 situated in Annadaivam village. In the said land a road of 60 feet u,idth u.as formed in the ycar 1975 2 E--@ v frorn Annapuleddipalli village Lo Chaparalapalli villagc through the land admeasuring Acs.60.00 in S1,.Nos.39/ 1, 39 l2 and 39/3 belonging to Lhe petitioncr-te mple. The pel itioncr temple made several representations from the ),ear 1980 Lo thc respondent authoritics requesLing to pay compensation lor the aforcsaid land. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer, R&B Division, Iihammam vide his lelter No.DB/81/83 84 dated 13.01.1984 inlormed that the road r'vas taken to thc R&B fold in the year 1975 and the road was handed over by the Z.P. authorities and as such Z.P. authoritics should have pard compensatlon u.hile Laying the road and tht: clcpartment q:.ls not responsible for paying compensation. It is furthcr submilted th.rt on

23.O8.2006, thc petitioner-temple made anothcr represenlation [o the respondent authorities requesting to take necessary steps for payment of compcnsatron to the petitioner-temple for the a bove Iarnd . Since no action vr.as taken thcreon, peLitioncr temple lilcd W.P. No.3316 of 2007 before Lhis Court wherein initially this Court on 22.O2.2007 in WPMP. No.4226 ol 2OO7 passed the follou.ing interim ordcr. "An extent of 60 acres of lald, belonging, to the petitioner-temple was utilized in laying a public road. No compensation was paid there for. Whcn the petitioner demanded for payment of compensation, a reply was issued on 30.8.1996 by the Executive Engineer, P.R. Kothagudem, to the effect that, since nobody had objected to the layrng of road, no compensation be paid. The reply issucd by R & B Department is also to the same effect. The net result is that thc pctilioner is l&l .''.:/. -fr denied of the compensation for the land as well as the returns there from There shall be an interim direction to the respondents to take necessary steps for initiation of proceedings under the l,and Acquisrtion Act or for payment of compensation in accordance with law within two months from today ln default, the respondents Nbs.4 and 5 shall be liable to pay the lease amount for 6O acres of land @ Rs 3,000/ (Rupees three thousand only) per annumi per acre, till the amount is asccrtained in accordance with law, commencing from the crop year 2007-200a." It is submitted that when the said interim order was not 5. complied with by the respondents, petitioner-temple filed C'C No' 140 of 2OO8 anci the same was closed on 05 i 1 2OO8 on the ground that the main rvrit pelition was disposed of on 05 1f 2O0S Thereafter' aggrievecl by the order passed by the Learned Single Judge' responclents prelerred an appeal in W.A. No 860 oF 2OO9 and the same was also dismissed on 23.O2.2022 holding as under: "lt is an undisputcd lact that lhe land of the temple, which is a religious endowment, was taken over without following due process of Iaw by the State Government Not a single mpee was paid as compensation and one Department was shifting its liability upon the other Department in the matter of payment of compensation and in those circumstanccs, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the State Government to pay the compensation' The most unfortunate part of the case is that the 4 \\,rlt pe tition was dccided on 05. 1 1 .2008 ald rvc ire in the ye.at 2022. 'lherc n as no intcrrm or dcr gralted in thc matter ar d no compensation h:rs been pard till date. The admitted facts reveal that no lancl acqursition proceedings u'ere initiatcd under the L:u'rd Acquisition Acr, 1894, ar-rd thcrefole, nou.. proceedings have to take place under the zught to Fair Compensation and Transparenc_v in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Rescltlemcnt Act 20 13, only. Resullantiy, thc writ appeal star-rds clismissed. The order of the learned Single Judgc m the maLter of grant of compcrrsation bc complicd with by taking into account the Right to F air Compensation ald Trar-rsparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act. 2013. Thc exercisc of grat-rt of compensation ard irllcrest bc concludcd within a per-iod of threc monLl-rs from todat,. The miscellallcous applications pending, if any, shall stald closed. There shall bc no ordcr as 1o costs. "

6. The learned counsel for Lhe petitioner submitted that sir.rce tl-rc petitioncr- lemple land v".as taken in the year 1975 and though thls Court passed orders in W.P. No.33 16 of 2007 and thc same was confirmed by tl're Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A, No.860 of 2OO9 wiLh a direction to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and ReseLtlement Act, 2O 13, hou,ever, ) no action has been taken thereon. It is further submitted that a representation dated 1O. 12.2022 was aiso made to the respondent authorities to pay compensation in accordance with the High Court orders. Hou.ever no steps were taken by the respondents in terms of the orders passed by this Court. euestioning the same, present writ perir io rr is iiled.

7. Written instructions dated 11.Og.2O25 given by the respondent No.S has been placed before this Court by the learned Government Pleader, which reads as uncler: "1) Sri Balaji Venkateshwara Swamy Vari Devastanam repr: by its Executive Officer, pakala Venkata Ramana has filed Wp. No.23320 of 2025 regarding payment of compensation for the land admeasuring an extent of 60 acres in Sy.no.39 situated in Annadaivam village, rr,.here in the petitioner l-ras laid road without payment of compensation. 2) The road has been taken over by the palchayat Raj Department prior to 1975 ar-rcl has been lard by the sard department, and as such if any compensation is liable to be paid. 3) The road is taken over by the (R&B) department from Annapureddypalli to Mulakalapalli (via) Madhavaram, Chaparalapally total length of 19 KM for the purpose of improvements and maintenartce only. 4) The Executive Officer, Sri Balaji Venkateswara Swamy Vari Devastanam was f,rled W.p. No.33l6 l 1 I I 1 l E'--@ \: i.'!..r.] {... 6 ot 2OO7 , WAMA. No.1683 of 2009 & lA No.2 of 2OO9 was hled in the Hon'blc llgh Court Hyderabad. The judgment s'as issued by the Hon'blc High Court, Hyderabad in the WA No.860 of 2009 daLcd: 23.02.2022. 5) However, comply with the Hon'ble Fligh Court orders The Exccutive Enginccr (R&B) Division, Kothagudem has addresscd the Collcctor & District Magistrate, Bhadradri Kothaguctem & the Revenue Divisional ofhcer, Kothagudem to act as pcr the Hon'ble Court orders in WA. No.860 of 2009. 6l Thc Collector & District Magistrate, Bhadradri Kothagudem has directed the trxecutivc Enginecr (R&B) Division, Kothagudem to sr-rbmit the rcquisition proposals for acquisition of the land as per Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Rescttlement Act, 20 i3 arrd it is under process "

8. Based on the abovc r"t ritten instructrons, the lcarned Government Pleader for rcspondents sccks lour months time to complete thc en tire process of land acquisiLion proccedings under 2013 Act. g. Recording the submissions made by the Iearned counsel for the petitioner and respondents and the fact that the petitioner's temple land was taken in the year 1975 and no compensation is paid in the light of the orders passed by this Courl in W.P No.33i6 of 2O07 and confirmed in W.A. No.86O of 2009, the respondents need to take note i **,7 l' 7 that they are bound by the orders passed by this Court and compliance of the Court orders invites civil contempt'

10. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maninderjit Singh Bitta V' Union of India & othersl held that the Court directions must be viewed very seriously and non-implernentation of the said order would lead to contempt of Court, wherein relevant para Nos.15 and 16 are extracted hereunder: "15. The obed,ience of orders of this Court is nccessar5r for presen'it'lg thc integrity of this constitutional Institution alld to put forward this point reference can bc made to the following paragraph appearing in Lhe judgment of this Court in Achhan Rin'i (2) v Slate of U.P.: (SCC P.754, Para 7). "7. It appears to us that if no assurance of an effectivc implementation of the Court's orders is forthcoming from the State Government, it will be our constitutional duty not merely to expect but to exact obedicnce in an appropriate manncr. This step, we believe, would bccome necessary to preserve the meaning and integrity of the constitutional institlrtions ar-rd their interrelalionshi.ps, essential to the preservation of the chosen way of life of the Indian people under the Constitution."

16. Disobedience of court orders, more so persistent disobedience, have been viewed very seriously b)' the courts concerned. It is not only desirable but an essentierl requirement of law that I (2011) 11 Suprerne Court cases 315 : 2011 SCC Online SC 587 T r@\, .- '- --7-' ..r.... ,\\ 8 the au thoritics / execu tive concerned should czu-ry out their statutory fur-rctions ald comply rvith the orders of the courl wrthin the stipulated time. Such course attains greater significance rvhcre the statutory law is coupJcd with the directions issucd bv a court of law ir-r relation to attainment o[ a public purpose ald public intcrcst. In the prescnt days, safetl, of the citizens is of paralnount concern for the State and all its authonties/ Thc directions issued b1. this Court for implemcntation of thc HSRP Scheme sought to achieve such interest as,.vc11 as rl r.r.ould be a stcp forrvard cven in the hcld of invcstigation in case a r.chicle is used in commitment of an offence or- a crime." 1 1. In that vier. of tlle matter, aud in lhe light ol' thc orders passed in W.P.No.3316 of 2OrJ7 and confirmecl in W.A.No.86O of 2O09 this writ petition is disposed of directing lhc respondcnts Lo complete the entire process of land acquisition proccedings under 2013 Act r,r.ithin a period of (04) lour morlLhs from the date of Lhc rcceipt of a copy of this order and pa]. compensation to the pctitioner's temple u,ithouL any further delav.

12. Accordingly, this n rit petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/i SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR STANT REGISTRAR To 1 SECTION OFFICER The Principar Secretarv Roads & Buirdings Deparrment. Government of Telangana, Secretariat, liyderabad. -- - rv evvu.

1...\li''

2. The Chief Engineer, Roads & Buildings Department, Errum Manzil, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, Khammam. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Roads & Buildings Department, Khammam. 5. The Executive Engineer, R & B Department, Khammam. 6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Khammam. 7. The Superintending Engineer, Panchayath Raj, Khammam. I \ B. The Executive Englneer, PSR Division, Kothagudem. L One CC to SRI CH. SATISH KUIUAR, Advocate [OPUC] 10.Two CCs to SRI R. POOLSINGH NAIK, AGP for Roads & Buildings, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUf] 1 1 . Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

12.One CC to SRI K. PRADEEP REDDY, Standing Counsel [OPUC] 13. Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

14.Two CCs to SRI BHUKYA IVANGILAL NAIK, GP for Endowments, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 1 5. Two CD Copies IVP BSR W I I ! 1 I I i i ; i I , i ! i I l l I i I t 'i I ] I I I I CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:1210812025 HE SI4 1 2 i Al]G 2025 o O ( * v =z + '' * ORDER WP.No.23320 of 2O2S , i DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 { a0 I