The High Court · 2025

1 Sri K.Mohan Reddy, S/o Sri Venkat Reddy, Age 54 Years, Occ Agriculture, R/o Vanapatla, Vanapatla village, Nagarkurnool District The State Of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 2 J 4 5 b 7 o I The Collector, Nagar Kurnool Nagar Kumool District, Telangana State The Joint Collector, Nagar Kurnool Nagar Kumool, District, Telangana State The Special Deputy- Collector, Bheema Project ( Mahathma Gandhi Lift . lrrigation Scheme), Situated at Nagar Kurnool, Mhaboob Nagar (Old District ) The Revenue Divisional fficer, Nagar Kurnool, Nagarkumool District. The Thasildar /Mandal Revenue Officer, Vanapaatla,Vanapatla Mandal, Nagar kurnool District KLI Works Agency, Rep by its Managing Director Situated at Camp Office at Chandubatla Nagar Kurnool, Nagar Kurnool District Telanagana State. Kotla Pratap Reddy S/o.Mutyala Reddy, aged about 64 years, Occ: agriculture, Rl/o. Vanapatla Village & Mandal, Nagar Kurnool District. 10 Sri. T. Ram Chander, The then Executive Engineer (l/C), Bhongir. 11 Sri. Sanjeeva Rao, The then Deputy Executive Engineer (l/C), Presently working as Executive Engineer, MGKLIS Division No.2, Nagar Kumool. 12 Smt. G. Malathi, The then Deputy Executive Engineer (l/C), Presently working as Exxecutive Engineer, CE (P), Mahabubnagar. 13 Smt. A. Shailaja, The then Deputy Executive Engineer (l/C), Presently working as Deputy Executive Engineer, CE (P), Mahabubnagar. 14 Sri. T. Sridhar, The then Assistant Executive Epgineer, Presently working as Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub-Division No. 4, MGKLIS Division No. 2, Nagarkurnool. 4 15 Sri. P. Sravan Kumar Reddy, The Then Assistanl Executive Engineer, Presently worl..ing as Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub-Division - 1, MGKLIS Division No. 2 Nagarkurnool. 16 Kum. M. Sinduri, The then Executive Engineer, rrresently working as ' 'Assistant Exer;utive Engineer, O/o Advisor Lift lrrigation Scheme, Jala Soudha Building, Errarranzil, Hyderabad. 17 Sri. K. Rama (rishna Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, Aged about 58 years, Occ Agriculture, R'o Vanapatla Village, Nagar Kurnool Mandal, Nagar Kurnool District, ( Erstwhile lvlahaboob Nagar District). ...RESPONDENTS Petition unde, Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed n suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the lnterim Order dated.23.10.2017 passed in W.P.Nc,.33538 of 2017. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAMA KRISHNA KULKARhII Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3, I & 9: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4 to 7: AGP FOR lRRl AND COMM AREA DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.10: M/s. K.TULASI DURGA,MBA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 1 : SRI M.V.PRAVEEN KU MAR Counsel for the Res pondent No.'l 3 to 1 8: SRI M.P.K.ADIWA WRIT PETITION NO: 2981 OF 2018 Between:

1. Kotla Pratap Reddy, S/o K. Mutyala Reddy Aged about 64 years, Occ Agriculture

2. Kotla Damodar Reddy, S/o K. Mutyala Reddy Aged about 61 years, Occ Agriculture

3. K. Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o K. Ram Reddy Aged about 25 years Occ Agriculture

4. K. Ram Reddy S/o Chandra Reddy Aged about 67 yeals, Occ Agriculture 5. P. Lakshmi, W'o Shekar Reddy Aged about 45 years, Occ housewife 6. C. Sreenu, S/o Chandraiah Aged about 40 years, Occ Agriculture 7. Bakkaiah, S/o lhandraiah Aged about 45 years, Occ Agriculture B. Barla Mahendramma, Wo Yadireddy Aged about 45 yeirrs, Occ Housewife 9. K. Chandrakala, Wo Janardhan Reddy Aged about 55 )/ears, Occ Housewife, All are Residents of Vanapatla Village and Mandal, Nag;ar Kurnool District ...PETITIONERS .AND 5

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .?.. fhe District Collector, Nagar Kurnool, Nagar Kurnool District 3. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (BHEEMA project), Nagar Kumool District

4. The Chief Engineer, lrrigation Department Efrqqma Project, Mahathma Gandhi Lift lnigetion Scheme) MahaboobNagar District

5. The superintendent of Engineer, Division-ll Mahathma Gandhi Kalwakurthy Lift lrrigition Scheme, PebSer Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

6. The Executive Engineer, M Scheme, Nagarkurnool District. ahathma Gandhi Kalwakurthy Lift lrrigation

7. Sri K. Mohan Reddy S/o. Sri Venkat reddy, aged..54.years, Occ: Agriculture, Rl/o. Vanapatla, Variapatla Village, Nagarkurnool district.

8. Sri. T. Ram Chander, S/o. Not known, age 55 years, The then. Executive - Enbineer (t/C), Bhongir, R/o. O/o Executive Ehgineer, Bhongir, Bhongir Yadadri District. g. Sri. Sanieeva Rao, The then Deputy Executive Engineer (l/C), Presently - *o*rg is Executive Engineer, MGKLiS Division No.2, Nagar Kurnool' 1 0. smt. c. vtatatni, The then Deputy Executive Engineer (lic), Presently working as Exxecutive Engineer, CE (P), Mahabubnagar.

11. Smt. A. Shailaja, The then Deputy Exe.c-utive Engineer (l/C), Presently ' working as Deputy Executive Engineer, CE (P), Mahabubnagar'

12.Sri. T. Sridhar, The then Assistant Executive Engineer, Presently working 1s - AJsistant Exe6utive Engineer, Sub-Division No. 4, 1'/GKLIS Division No 2, Nagarkurnool. '13. Sri. P. Sravan Kumar Reddy, The Then Assistant Executive EnS-!l-gq! '' Fiesentfv wo*ing ii AssistantExecutive Engineer, Sub-Division - 1, MGKLIS Division No. 2, Nagarkumool.

14. Kum. M. Sinduri, The then Executive Engineer, Presently working .as Assistant Executive Engineer, o/o Advisor Lift lrrigation scheme, Jala soudha Building, Erramanzil, HYderabad. R7 is impleaded as per C.O. dt. 301312022 in l.A.No.2/2018 Respondent Nos.8 to 14 are impleaded as per C.O. dt' 04'02'2025 in lA.No.1/2023 ...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 issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that action of the respondents No. 2 to 6, in digging the canal by deviating the original sanction plan approved by the Government as arbitrqry 6 illegal un warrantec and u ncon stitutio na I consequently direct the respondents to restore the petitione:rs land in Sy.Nos.177,169,168, 159 consequently direct the respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 18-09-2017 and cohsequently set as,ide acquisition proceedings initiated urrder Sec 9(2) and 9(3) dated 07.06.2012 in file no. El54l11 including award pass;ed if any and restore the petitioners landrr acquired 1 Acre 03 Guntas before. Prafer amended ar; per C.O. dt. 26.07.2024 in lA.No.2/2023 lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 respondent No.2 to 6 to digging the canal in ternrs of plan approved by the authority by r onsidering the representation dated 18-09-2017 Without interfering the petiti:ner land in SY.No.177,169,168, 159 of Vanapatla Village, Nagar Kurnool Distr ct, pending disposal of the above writ prqfi{ien. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M.V.PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Res;pondent No.1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Res;pondent No.4 to 6: AGP FOR IRRIGATION Counsel for the Resipondent No.7: SRI RAMA KRISHNA KULKARNI Counsel for the Respondent No.8 to 14: SRI M.P.K.ADlryA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2563 OF 2018 Contempt Car;e under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to punish the responde,nt No. 1 to 9 willfully violated the orders dated 23.10.2017 in WP.No.33538 o1 2017 deliberately and intentionally. Between: Sri K. Mohan Reddy, S/o Sri Venkat Reddy, Age 54 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R:/o Vanapatla, Vanapatla village, Nagarkurnool District. AND 1 Sri. Sridhar, '-he District Collector, Nagar Kurnool, I'Jagar Kurnool District, Telangana Sterte ...PETITIONER .t 7

2. Sri. Sridhar, The Joint Collector, Nagar Kurnool Nagar Kurnool, .District,. Telangana State, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

3. Sri Ramulu, The Special Deputy- Collector Bheema. Project (Mahathma Gandhi Lift lrrigation Scheme), Situated at Nagar Kurnool, Mahaboob Nagar . (Old District ) 4. Sri. Khagendhar, The Chief Engineer , lrrigation Dept., Bheema Project ( Mahathma Gandhi Lift lnigation Scheme), Mahaboob Nagar District.

5. Sri. Sanjeeva Rao, The Executive Engineer, lrrigation Dept. Bheerna Project ( Mahathma Gandhi Lift lrrigation Scheme), Mahaboob Nagar District.

6. Sri. Manik Prabhu, The Deputy Engineer lnigation Department Bheema Project ( Mahathma Gandhi Lift lrrigation Scheme), Mahaboob Nagar District. 7. Sri. Srinivasulu, The Revenue Divisional Officer Nagar Kumool, Nagarkurnool District.

8. Sri. Srinvasulu Suri, The Thasildar /Mandal Revenue Officer Vanapatla Village and Mandal, Nagar kurnool District L Sri. Venkateswara Rao, KLI Works Agency Managing Director, Situated at Camp Office at Chandubatla Nagar Kurnool, Nagar Kurnool District Telanagana State. ...CONTEMNORS Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAMA KRISHNA KULKARNI Counsel for the Respondent No.1, 3 & 8: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 & 4: SRI P.RAJASRIPATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.5 to 7: GP FOR IRRIGATION The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER }ION'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION Nos.33s38 0F 2017 & 2981 0F 2018 AND C.C. No.2563 OF 201E COMMONORDER: Heard \{r. Rama Krishna Kulkami, learngd counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.7 in W.P. No.2981 of 2018, Ms. Kalla Tulasi Durgamba, leamed counsel for respondent No.1() and Mr. M.P.K. Aditya, learne,J counsel for respondent Nos.1 3 to l8 in W.P. No.33538 of 2017 , Mr. N{.V. Praveen Kumar, leamed counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.298I of 201 8. leamed Assistant Govemme,nt for Revenue, learned Assisttnt Government Pleader for Irrigation an<[ Command Area Development

2. Zrs involved in both the writ petitions ts similar, while Contempt Case No.2563 of 2018 arose out of order rlated 23.10.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.No.33538 of 2017. Therefor:e, both the writ petitions alonll vvith Contempt Case were heard togethcr and the same are being disposed of by way of this common order

3. Hcwever, for the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter refi:rred to as they are arrayed in W.P. No.33 538 of 2017

4. W.P, No.33538 of 2017 is filed by the petitioner: f ., 2 KI,,J w.P. No.31538 of 2@7 & batch "...to declare the action ofthe respondent Nos.2 to 10 in digging the canal by deviating the original sanction plan approved by the Govemment consequently direct the respondents to restore/close the canal throdgh petitioner Iand in Sy.No. 169 and 157. set aside the same as it is illegal arbitrary unconstitutional motivated unwarranted and unsustainable against law as well as principles of natural Justice consequently direct the respondents to dig the canal in accordance with the original sanction plan in Sy. No.l69 in Vanapatla Village....."

5. Subsequently, W.P. No.2981 of 2018 is filed by other set of people: "..... to declare action of respondents Nos.2 to 6 in digging the canal by deviating the original sanction plan approved by the Govemment as arbitrary illegal un warranted and unconstitutional consequently direct the respondents to restore the petitioners land in Sy. Nos. 177, 169, 168 and 159 consequently direct the respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 18.09.2017 and consequently set aside acquisition proceedings initiated under Sections 9 (2) and 9 (3) dated 07.06.2012 in File No. E/54/l I including award passed if any and restore the petitioners' Iands acquired I Acre 03 Guntas and...."

6. The petitioner in W.P. No.33538 of 2017 filed Contempt Case vide C.C. No.2563 of 2018 alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order dated23.70.2017 passed by this Court in W.P. No.33538 of 2017/ 7 3 KI,,J w P No 31538 ol20r7 & batch

7. CASE OF PETITIO NER IN W.P. No.33538 /t7.. ' i) He is the absolute owner and possessor ofthe land to an extent of Ac.0. 18 guntas in Survey No. I 69 and Ac.0.30 guntas in Survey No.157, situate d at Vanapatla Village, Nagarkumool Mandal and District (erstu hile Mal abubnagar District). iD He is eking out his livelihood by doing al3riculture on the aforesaid land. iii) The official respondents prepared a plan by c,)nducting survey and the same v/as approved by the Govemment for digg ng a canal. iv) Respondent Nos.3 to 7 while digging the Canal through the petitioner and other lands deviating the plan, he brought the same to the notice of respondent No.2 by submitting a repr,:sentation dated

17.05.2016, brrt the same was not considered and illegrlly trying to dig the canal on the land covered by Survey No.157, where the land of the petitioner is a so situated. There was no Notification irr respect of the land in Survey No.1 57 for the said Canal v) The oetitioner also submitted representations )n'Praja Vani on 27 .06.2016, 0: .12.2016 arld 77.04.2077 . n t, 4 KI,J W.P. No.33538 of2P & h6tch vi) Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a writ petrtion vide W.P. No.166682 of 2017, and this Court disposed of the same vide order dated 17.05.2016 basing on the representation made by leamed Govemment Pleader that the respondents are not deviating the original sanction plan. However, this Court directed respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 17 .05.2016, but the same was neither considered, nor passed any order on it. vii) Without paying the amount and without issuing any notification in respect of the petitioner land, digging the canal is illegal and arbitrary. With the said contentions, they sought to dismiss the present writ petition.

8. CONTENTIONS OF OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS: Respondent Nos.l, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 filed counter contending as follows: i) Originally the land in Survey No.l69 consists of Acs.2.09 guntas and Survey No.157 consists of Acs.3.30 guntas of Vanapatla Village belonged to one Mr. Venkat Reddy S/o Laxma Reddy. After his derrfi6e, succession proceedings were initiated in favour of his legal heirs, namely Mr. K. Laxma Reddy, Mr. K. Mohan Reddy (writ n 5 KL,J W.l' 110.33538 of2(t7 & batch petitioner), Mr. K. Ramakishna Reddy, Mr. K. Sairam Reddy and Mr K. Bhaskar Reody. Their names were mutated as successors and pattadar passbooks werc also issued ii) PursrLant to the requisition made by the Exet:utive Engineer, Mahathma Gardhi Lift Inigation Scheme (MGLISP, Nagar Kumool, Division No.2 respondent No.6), vide letter dated 25.(.''7.2011 the land in Survey N.169 rvas acquired for formation of Minorl of Dy.2L after following due;rocess. Award was also passed on 23.12.2013 which rvas approved by the Special Collector, Bheema Proj ect r.ide proceedings dated 28.12201 3 iii) Thot gh original pattas were not issued in favc,our of aforesaid legal heirs of the original pattadar, Mr. V. Venkat Re,lly, taking into consideration <,f their physical possession and enjoynrcnt passed the aforesaid awarr iv) The lands in Survey No.157 were not acquir,:d. The land in Survey No.169 contains an extent of Acs.14.37 guntas. The petitioner and his brothc"s have an extent of Acs.2.09 gunlas o -11- of which, an extent of Ac.0 17 guntas belongs to Mr. K. Ramakishna Reddy was acquired though the names of petitioner and his brother rvere taken into consideration i s possessors and joint award was pass,ed for the said i.n,...- i :ii _: ii, ;L*{.n i Cr-^ r-.*l ffi:t Y 6 ..r. wp. No.:rsfs;f zdz a b"rct extent. Accordingly, the compensation amount of Rs.51,000/- was paid to Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy on 11.08.2015 towards his share and the land of the petitioner remains untouched for acquibition. v) The contention of the petitioner that respondent Nos.3 to 7 are deviating from the original sanction plan approved by the Govemment in Vanapatla Village, Nagarkumool Mandal, from the sanction land and digging the canal through the lands of the petitioner and other lands is without any basis. vi) There is no change of sanction plan and there is no deviation in executing the works. vii) The land in Survey No.157 was not at all acquired.

9. CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONERS IN WP No.2981/18: i) They are the agriculturists by profession and are eking out their livelihood by forming their respective lands in Survey Nos.171, 172, 177, 169, I 68, 1 60, I 61, I 62, 726 and 127 of the aforesaid Village. ii) In the month of January,2013, a field survey to dig the Canal through their land was conducted. The same was opposed by them as it would affect their livelihood. Pursuant to their objection,. the*&d propojiay'was dropped. .-,/ /.u 7 K L,J w P. llo 33538 o1207 & batch iii) There after, an approval was made to dig the canal through Survdy Nos.172. 176, t't7,169, 168, 157 and 158' But, their lands were acquired under L-and Acquisition Act and started digging the Canal in Survey Nos.17l l'12, 177,169, 168 and 159 suppressing the original approved alignnrent and without touching the land covcred by Survey Nos.176 and 15 /. Aggricved by the said action, they ma.de a complaint against the offi,;ial respondents before the Lokayuktha and also made represcntations o the District Collector and Inigation Departments, but no action has be.'n taken so lar by them. iv) As per the original approval plan, the land of one Mr' Krishnamma in Survey No.177 to an extent of Acs'2-99 guntas; Iand of Mr. Ramireddy in Survey No.176; lands of petitioner in W'P: No 33538 of 2017 , Mr. R rmakrishna Reddy in Suwey No. 157 would bc affected, but suppressing. the same, the Executive Engineer mil;led the Higher officials taking advantage of political and official influetrr;e and illegally acquired the lands of these petitioners as against the otiginal approved plan. 10 CONTEN TIONS OF OFFICIAL S RESPO]\DENTS: Re spondent No.3 filed counter contending as follows: T 8 KI,.J W.P. No 3353E of 2qp & batch i) After following due procedure laid down under law and conducting field survey, the respondents acquired the lands of the petitioners in Survey Nos.l72, 171, 177,169, 168, 159, 158, 160, 161, 162, 133, 129, 127, lll, 126, 124, 721, making a toLal extent of Acs.17.35 guntas for the aforesaid Canal and even with their consent only Awards were passed on 23.12.2013. Pursuant to the said awards, compensation amount was also paid to the petitioners in W.P. No.2981 of 2018, the details of which are mentioned in page No.5 of the counter affidavit. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners are well aware of the fact of their lands coming under land acquisition and receipt of compensation for formation of aforesaid Canal. In view of the same. the contcntion of the petitioners is incorrect and, therefore, requested to dismiss the writ petition

11. C.C.No.2563 FO 2018 i) This Court passed interim orders on 23.1O.2017 in W.P. No.33538 of 2017 to the effect that the respondents shall confine to the digging activities as per the sanction plan only. But, the respondents dug the canal by violating the sanction plan as well as the said interim orders of this l-ourt and the proceedings dated 13.07.2018 would reflect the ,i 'tl 9 XI.J wP No 33s38 oI20J, & baich same. Thus, tlre respondents are liable to be punished under Contempt of Courts Act.

12. CO]\TENTIONS OF THE RESPOITIDENI'S: Respondent No.4 filed counter aff,rdavit narrating the mode of acquisition anri the procedure followed thereof while ar;quiring the land in the aforesairl survey numbers and also passing awarcs etc. He further contended as f,rllows: i) The retitioner was not the pattadar in respect. of thc acquired land in Survcv No. 169 at thc time of passing the award, dated

28.t2.20t3. ii) The petitioner filed an application on 17 .05.2016 to respondent No.2 and also made another representation dated 30.06.2015 in Prajavanni, u4rich was sent to respondent No.6 for taking further action. In respect to tlre said representation, the Surveyor conducted the survey in Survey No. 157 and filed report on 04.10.2017. Accc,rding to the said survey, the lanl of the petitioner in Survey No.157 is nct affecting under the Canal. 'Ih:refbre, the question of digging in his land in Survey No. 157 does n,rt arise. 111) Vide letter dated 18.11.2017, respondent Nc.6 informed that the earth worl< excavation in Survey No.169 was completed as per ci*t :A- -i Err,;- ffi,t 'l*#, r5*.l! , i I .*r.x ..'- t0 KL,J w P No 33538 of2@7 & batch approved alignment plan. Thus, the respondents did not violate the orders of this Court.

13. W.P. No.33538 OF 2017: i) In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, the main contention of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor ofthe land admeasuring Ac.0.l8 guntas in Survey No.169 and Ac.0.30 guntas in Suwey No.157 of Vanapatla Village of Nagarkurnool Mandal District. 'fhe official respondents without issuing any notification in respect of the land in Survey No.157 and without paying any compensation acquired his land. Therefore, the said action of official respondents is arbitrary and illegal. Whereas, it is the contention of oflicial respondents that they acquired the land in respect of Survey No.169 to an extent of Acs.l.2l guntas for formation of Minor-I of Dy-2L and that they did not acquire any land in Survey No.l57. Even in Suwey No.169, the petitioner and his brothers have an extent of Acs.2.09 guntas of which, only an extent of Ac.0. 17 guntas was acquired and that the said extent of Ac.0. 17 guntas of land belonged to one of the brothers of the petitioner i.e., Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy and accordingly an amount of Rs.51,000/- was paid to him as compensation on 11.08.2015. The land of the petitioner did not acquire. Therefore, according to the official respondents, the .'-1 KI,J w l, {o 33s38 ofry & tatch contentions of the petitioner that his land was acquirec without paying compensation iLnd that the official respondents deviated iom the original sanction plan approved by the Govemment in Vanapatla Village, Survey Nos.169 and 1:i7 etc., are incorrect ii) Perusal of land acquisition sketch plan filed b1' both the parties would show thrt the there is no canal passing through Survey No.l57 at all and that thr subject canal is passing through Survey'No.169. As far as Survey No. 69 is concemed, as stated above, it is contended by the official respon<lents that the pctitioner and his brothers have an extent of Acs.2.09 gunt:Ls of which, only an extent of Ac.0. I 7 guntas was acquired. The said extent of Ac.O.17 guntas of land belongs to one ofthe brothers of the petitioner i.e., Mr. K. Ramakishna Redrly. Accordingly an amount o Rs.5l,000L was paid to him as crmpensation on

11.08.2015. Irr view of the same, it is clear that there is a dispute with regard to title among the brothers of the petitioner as the petitioner is also claiming r, right over an extent of Ac.0.l8 guntas ir Survey No.l69 If really the petitioner has any right, title or interest cver the land in Survey No.16!. it is for him to approach competent Civil Court seeking adjudication o1'the same including declaration of his title over an extent in Survey No.l 69 and also payment of compensation etc. But, the same .: a l 'l t'r.l' t2 KI.J wP No.33538 of2@ & balch cannot be decided in a writ petition filed under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, Iiberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, to establish his right over the land in Survey No.l69. iii) As far as Survey No.l57 is concerned, it is contended by the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0.30 guntas in Survey No.157 of Vanapatla Village, The official respondents deviated from the original plan approved and dug the subject canal tkough various Survey Numbers including the land of the petitioner in Suwey No.157 without issuing any notice and without paying any compensation. Despite submitting representations to the official respondents, the same were not considered. Thus, the action of official respondents in digging the subject canal through the land of the petitioner in Survey No.157 is illegal and arbitrary. Whereas, it is contended by respondent Nos.l to 4, 8 and 9 that they did not deviate from the original sanction plan by digging the canal works tfuough the land of the petitioner in Survey No.157. They further contended that they never acquired the land in Survey No.157, as such, question of issuing notifrcation and making payment does not arise -.._j, 13 KI,J w t ){0.33518 of20! & batch iv) As rrer the material available on record, thr: contentions of respondent No;.1 to 4, 8 and 9 that there is no dev iation from the original sancticn plan approved by the Govemment and that they never acquired the latd in Survey No.157 etc., cannot be accr:pted in view of the Vigilanct Report No.35 (C.No.59/V&E/E.IlI/2018), dated

19.07.2019 of l)irector General (Vigilance & Enforcement). v) Perusal of Vigilance Report dated 19.07.20: !) would reveal that the farmers of Survey Nos.169, 168, 159, 158 iurd others have represented to the I{igher Authorities that the present alignment is passing througl.r middle of their holdings and made a rt:quest to dig the Canal from tht' one end of their survey numbers with ,r further request that it would provide waler to their lands completely. Ihe Villagers of Manthati and three others requested to provide wate.' by completing digging balance length of Canal. But, the farmers in Survey Nos.169, 168 and 157 e,c., were unwilling for excavation of the canal as per the land acquired. However, at the request ofthe public representatives, the Higher Authorities thought of changing alignment of canal for which if required some more land may be acquired in Survey Nori.169 and 159, to ease the situatitn. ,:r*.. " t4 KL,I w P No.33518 of 2d7 & batch vi) In the said report, it was observed that the concemed officers executed, recorded and recommended for payment without approved alignment. In view of the same, the Director General (Vigilance & Enforcement) recommended the Govemment to initiate disciplinary/departmental action against the erring Officials/Engineers for recommending revised alignment without technical feasibility and execution of canal temporarily without approved alignment and making payment thereof causing huge loss to the Govemment Exchequer. The said report shows that the official respondents deviated fiom the original sanction plan and excavated the works in respect of the subject canal. It appears that as per the Geo-referenced Cadastral Data available in Bhuvan-2D, Indian Geo-Platform of ISRO, the excavation work in respect of the subject canal is also passing through Survey No-157 of Vanapatla Village. Thus, the contention of official respondents that they never excavated the canal works through Survey No.1 57 is incorrect. vii) In view of the above, the oflicial respondents have to take necessary steps for acquisition of the land of the petitioner in Survey No.157 of Vanapatla Vitlage and pay compensation in accordance with law. Thus, this writ petition is liable to be disposed of accordingly. t5 KL,J w I, Io 33s38 of2Qf & batch 14 W.P. No.2981 OF 2018: - i) In this writ petition, the retief claimed by the pel.itioners is that to declare the rrction of respondent Nos.2 to 6 in digging the canal by deviating from Lhe original sanction plan approved by th<: rliovemment as itlegal and for a consequential direction to restore the lands of the petitioners in respect of Survey Nos.177, 169,168 and l1i9t. ii) Perusal of counter affidavit fited by respondent No.3 would reveal that the oflicial respondents acquired the lands c'f the petitioners in Survey Nos 172, 171, 177,169, 168, 159, 158, 160, 161, 162' 133, l2g, 127, 111. 126, 724 and 121, making a total extent of Acs.l7.35 guntas. Even consent awards were also passed on 23.12 .',1013 . Pursuant to the said consent awards, compensation amounts wert ;llso paid to the petitioners in r,:spect of Survey Nos.177, 169, 168 and 159, the details of which are meniioned in page No.5 of the counter affidar it.. It is no doubt true that the official respondents deviated liom the original sanction plan approved by tte Govemment as observed in the Vigilance Report, dated lg .07 .2019 . But, the petitioners were paid compt:nsation for the acquisition o1 their lands by the Govemment. Trr:refore, having received the anount from the Govemment for acquisiticn of their lands, it is not fair on their part to seek a relief for restoration of their lands \ "1&r**!, 16 KL,,' W.P. No.ll538 of2ry & batch from acquisition. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled for the said relief, and at the most, they can seek a relief for enhancement of compensation. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

15. C.C. No.2563 OF 2018 i) The petitioner in W.P. No.33538 of 2017 filed this contempt case alleglng willful and deliberate violation of the order dated

23.10.2017 passed by this Court in the said writ petition' ii) Perusal of order dated 23.10.2017 would reveal that this Court passed interim order on 23.10.2017 in W.P' No.33538 of 2017 to the effect that the respondents shall confine to the digging activities according to the sanction plan only. Whereas, the respondents started excavation works in respect of the subject canal by deviating from the original sanction plan approved by the Govemment and thereby the respondents violated the interim order dated 23.10.2017 . Thus, according to the petitioner, the respondents violated the orders of this Court. iiD The present contempt case is filed against Mr. Sridhar, the Distril Collector, Nagarkumool District, Mr. Sridhar, the Joint Collector, Nagarkumool District, Mr. Ramulu, the Special Deputy t7 KL,J W l' l\o 33518 ot20, & batch Collector. Bheema Project, Mr. Khagendhar, the (lhief Engineer, Irrigation Deparrment, Bheema Project, Mr. Sanjeeva Ra.l. the l-lxecutive Engineer, Irrigation l)epartment, Bheema Project, Mr. M rnik Prabhu, the Deputy Engirccr. Irrigation Department, Bheema Project. Mr. Srinivasulu, the Rcvenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkumool Division, Mr Srinivasulu Sur i. the Thasildar, Vanapatla Village and }4andal, and Mr Venkateswara tao. KLI Works Agency, Contemnors. Whereas, as per the Vigilance l(eport dated 19.07.2019, the Director Gt:neral (vigilance and Enforcemr:nt) lound fault with Mr. T. Ram Chander, Executivc Engineer. Mr. Sanjeeva Rao, the Executive Engineer, i\lrs. G. Matathi, Deputy lJxect tivc Engineer, Mrs. A. Shailaja, Dcputy Exccutive Engineer, Mr. 'f . Sridhar, Assistant Executive Enginee', Mr. P. Sravan Kumar Reddy Assistant Executive E2ngineer and lls. M. Sinduri, Assistant Executivc Engineer, for committing irregularities in execution of canal rvork; by revising alignment and making pa'nnents etc., and accordingly re,:ommended the Govemment for initiation of disciplinary and departmerrtal action against them. The petitioner herein did not make them a., parties except one Mr. Sanjeeva Rao, the Executive Engineer (respondent No.5). As per the said vigilance r(lport, respondent Nos.l to 4 antl 6 to t herein were not committed any irregularities and, .J I I l l I I I l8 KI,,J w.P. No.33538 of20l) & batch therefore, they are not liable for punishment in this contempt as alleged by the petitioner. iv) As far as respondent No.5 is concemed, as per the Vigilance Report, dated 19.07.2019, the irregularities committed by him are as follows: a. Revised alignment recommended without technical feasibility and even after payment was made four (04) years back; b. Levels certified for already dug canal moreover W.P. No.33538/2017 and W.P. No.298l of 2018 are in force. c. He has deviated PWD Rules and agreement conditions; d. Not fumished required information to V&E v) In view ofthe above, it is clear that respondent No.5 is neither executed the canal work nor prepared the revised alignment. Thus, there is no violation, much less willful and deliberate violation of the interim order dated 23.10.2017 in W.P. No.33538 of 2017 by respondent No.5 In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner has not made the officials who violated the orders of this Court except respondent No.5. As stated above, respondent Nos.l to 4 and 6 to 9 are not liable for contemDt as thev have not violated the interim order dated 23.10.2017 ./ passed by this Court in W.P. No.33538 of 2017 as per the Vigilance ( I l9 KI-,J \\ P No lls38 of ?rlf & batch Report, dated 19.07.2019. The petitioner has not made the officials who violated the itierint order dated 23.10.2017 except rer;pondent No.5 as contemnors in the present Contempt Case. As discuss':d above, there is no violation of order under contempt by respondent No.5 also Therefore, this contempt case is liable to bb clrsed against the respondents hereil.

16. CONCLUSION: i) W.l'. No.33538 of 2017 is disposed of dir:uing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to inspect the land of the petitioner in '(iurvey No.l57 of Vanapatla Village, get the same surveyed and if it is found that excavation wurks were found in respect of subject cana[, take necessary steps for acquisition of land and payment of compensa-i,rn in accordance with taw. They' shall complete the entire exercise a period of "vithin three (03) months from the date ofreceipt ofa copy of this order. As far as Survey No.169 is concemed, the petitioner is at libt'rty to pursue civil remedies before the competent Civil Court. ii) W.l'. No.2981 of 2018 is dismissed. iii) C.C. No.2563 of 2018 is closed. iv) In the circumstances of the case, there shalt be no order as to 20 KL,J W.P No.33518 ot2qF & batch As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petitions and contempt case shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SD/. K.SHYLESHI PUTY REGISTRAR SEGTION OFFICER 5 2 3 4 Hyderabad, Telangana State.

1. The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, . The Collector, Nagar Kurnool Nagar Kumool District, Telangana State . The Joint Collector, Nagar Kumool Nagar Kurnool, District, Telangana State . The Special Deputy- Collector, Bheema Project ( Mahathma Gandhi Lift lrrigation Scheme), Situated at Nagar Kurnool, Mhaboob Nagar (Old District ) . The Chief Engineer, lrrigation Department Bheema Project ( Mahathma . The Executive Engineer, lnigation Department Bheema Project ( Mahathma . The Deputy Engineer, lrrigation Department Bheema Project ( Mahathma . The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagar Kumool, Nagarkurnool District. . The Thasildar /Mandal Revenue Officer, Vanapaatla,Vanapatla Mandal,' Gandhi Lift lnigation Scheme), Mahaboob Nagar District. Gandhi Lift lrrigation Scheme), Mahaboob Nagar District. Gandhi Lift lrrigation Scheme), Mahaboob Nagar District. 8 I 6 7 Nagar kurnool District. Kurnool Dishict

0.The District Collector, Nagar Kurnool, Nagar Kurnool District 1.The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (BHEEMA project), Nagar

2. The Chief Engineer, lrrigation Department Bheema Project, Mahathma Gandhi Lift lnigation Scheme) MahaboobNagar District

3.The Superintehdent of Engineer, Division-ll Mahathma Gandhi Kalwakurthy 4. The Executive Engineer, Mahathma Gandhi Kalwakurthy Lift lrrigation Lift lrrigation Scheme, Pebber Mandal, Wanaparthy District. Scheme, Nagarkumool District.

5. One CC to SRI RAMA KRISHNA KULKARNI, Advocate IOPUC] 6. One CC to SRI M.P.K.ADITYA, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to M/s. K.TULASI DURGAMBA, Advocate IOPUC] 8. One CC to SRI P.RAJASRIPATHI, Advocate [OPUC] 9.One CC to SRI M.V.PRAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 0.Two CCs to GP FOR lRRl AND COMM AREA DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

1.Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

2.Tfuo CCs to GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, High Court for the State of To, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

3.Two CD Copies BSR o 9 , I t/ HIGH COURT DATED: 0410212025 ;ttE STrrfF (r c) t1 R 20[ A l) !l ). 1,, COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.33538 of 2017 & 2981 ot 2018 ;rnd G.C.No.2563 of 2018 DISPOSING OF THE WP.No.33538 of 2A11, DISMISSING THE WP.No.2981 of 2018 & CLOSING THE C.C.No.2563 of 2018, WITHOUT COSTS