High Court · 2025

2. Syamala Lalitha, W/o. Srinivas, aged about 36 years, R/o. H.No.2-53, Kodurpaka Village, Boinpally [Vandal, Karimnagar District' Telangana.

3. Suddala Rajender, S/o. Lachaiah, aged about 28 years, Rl/o. H.No-6-86, Kodurpaka Village, Boinpally [t/andal, Karimnagar District, Telangana.

4. Nagula Padma, Wo. Late Devaraju, aged about 51 yea1s, Ri/o. H-No.10-7' Kodurpaka Village, Boinpally Mandal, Karimnagar District, Telangana. .....PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Telangana,, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, lrrigation and C-A-D Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sircilla Revenue Division' Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of IvIANDAMUS under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia declaring the inaction of the respondents in not considering the representations made by the Petitioners and also in not extending the benefits contemplated under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy vide G.O. Ms. No.68 dated 08th April, 2005 issued by lrrigation and C.A.D. (Project Wing-L.A-lV-R & R) Department., in lieu of the acquisition of the properties of the petitioners for Mid- l\rlaneru Reservoir by issuing a Notification in the Karimnagar District Gazette vide Gazette No. 64 dated 29-12-2009, as arbitrary, illegal, unlaMul, whoily unsustainabre in raw and viorative of Articres 14, 19, 21 and 300-4 of the constitution of rndia and to consequenry direct the respondenrs to grant benefits to the Petitioners, as stated in the Rehabiritation and Resetrement poricy vide G.O.Ms.No.6B dated 08th April, 2005 issued by lrrigation and C.A.D. (project wing-L A-rVRandR) Department for the project Dispraced Famiries, in the interest of justice. I.A.NO:1 OF 20 15 (WPM P.NO:50 653 0F 201s) Petition Under Section i 51 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 respondent authorities.to consider the representations of the petitioners for immediatery extending the benefits contemprated under the Rehabiritation and Reset'ement poricy vide G:o rVrs. No- 68 dated 08th Aprir, 2005 issued by lrrigation and C.A.D. (project Wing_L.A_lV_R&R) Department, pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the petitioners : SRt JOGINIPALLY SAI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No..t DEVELOPMENT : GP FOR tRRt AND COMM AREA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made ihe following ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.39293 of 2015 ORDER This writ petition is filed secking the following prayer:- "to declare the inaction of the respondents in not consideing the representations made by tte Petitioners and also in not extending the benefits contemplated under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement policg uide G.O.Ms.No.6B dated O8d' Apil, 2005 issued bg hrigation and C.A.D (Project Wing-L.A-M-R&R) Department., in lieu of tlrc acquisition of the properties of the Petitioners for Mid-Manent Reseruoir by issuing a Notificotion in the Kaimnagor District Cazette uide Gazette No.64 dated 29.12.2009 as arbitrary, illegal, unla uful, uhoLlg unsustainable in lau.t and uiolatiue of Afticles 14, 19,21 and 3oo-A of lhe Constitution of [ndia and to consqqLtentlg direct the respondents to grant. benefits to the Petitioners as stated in the Rehabililation and Resetllement policy uide G.O.Ms.No.6B dated O8,h Apil, 2005 issued bg Irrigation and C.A.D (Project Wing-L.A-M-R&R) Department for the Project Displaced Families."

2. Brief facts stated in Lhis writ petition are that the petitioners are the residents of Kodurpaka Village, Boinpally Mandal, Karimnagar District al:d ttrel' claim to be the posscssors of [he residential houses w]rere in they are staying. 'l'he case of the petitioners is that the then Government of Andhra Pradesh uirle Gazette Notificatron No.64 dated

29.12.2Oo,o ar.d uide proceeding No.Gl14274 /2oo9 statcd that the sur-vey rvas cotrciuctcd in Kodurpaka viltage and the said villagc r,,r,as notified as lully Submerge d village under Mid Manair ) I Reservoir Further case of the petitioners is that the respondent authorities ulde G.O.Ms.No.68 dated Og.04.2OO5, granted several benefits like allotment ol house sites, payment ol ex_ gratla and various other benefits to thc project displaced families and the said benefits were not extended to the petitioners. Hence, Lhe petitioners made several representations and requested respondent authorities to grant such benefits to the petitioners and when the same was not considered, petitioners filed this writ petition. .

3. Sri.Katta Radha Sandeepthi Reddy, learned Assistant Government pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that counter is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. rvherein it is stated that as per para 3.16 of G.O.Ms.No.68 dared 08.04.2005, rhe projecr affected families means the families who has been residing continuously for a period of not less than (3) years preceding the date of declaration of the affecte d. zone and thus, the benefits were extended to such families on)y' and not to the families who are not permanently residing in the project affected areas. It is further submitted that as pcr the re-verification made by the Tahsildar, Boinpali, the petitioners are enlisted in rn_eligible list, hence, the petitioner were not given benefits under G.O.Ms.No.68 dated Og.04.2OO5 and pray this Court to dismiss the writ petition. .\ / /' 3

4. Hcard, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and it is noticed that inspite of matter being posted under the caption 'specially identified cases', there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners either in physical mode or in virtual mode.

5. Having considered the facts and circumstances submitted by the learned Assistant Government for Revenue and in view of the fact that petitioners fails to subslantiate their case, the writ petition fails and this Court deems it appropriate to dismiss the r,",rit petition.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There sha1l be no order as to costs. As sequel to it, Miscellaneous Pelitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed. //TRUE COPY//

2. J. 4. To SA GJ Two CCs to GP FOR lRRt AND COMM AREA DEV for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC Two CD o to SRI JOGINIPALLY SAt KRISHNA, Advocate tOpUCI Copies SD/-P.GOWRI SHANKAR EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER LOPI\i/|ENT, High Court State of Telangana at I I HIGH COURT DATED:02 t0il2025 ORDER WP.No.39293 of 2O1S 22 A|JE trtr ^ \,j- ..-J)ts,,,. -.r-____- DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. o