Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1484 (TS)

Gadde Raghavaiah v. State of Telangana

2025-11-12

ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

body2025
ORDER: ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J. This Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents in taking appropriate action to pay compensation to the petitioners since their patta land admeasuring Ac.4- 20 gts in Sy.Nos. 223, 224, 225 and 227 situated at Kuppenakuntla village, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District are submerged in Satyanarayana Kunta of Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice despite memo dated 29.03.2004 of 1 st respondent and letter dated 13.02.2006 issued by 2 nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to take steps to pay compensation to the petitioners by following due procedure.” 2. Heard Mr. Ujwal Babu, learned counsel representing Mr. Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development appearing for the respondents. 3. Petitioners are questioning the inaction of respondent-authorities. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that land admeasuring Ac.0.27 gts in Sy.Nos.224; an extent of Ac.1.13 gts in Sy.No.226 and an extent of Ac.0.36 gts in Sy.No.227; a total extent of Ac.2.36 gts, situated at Kuppenakuntla village, Penuballi Mandal Khammam District be acquired, as these lands are submerged under the water of Satyanarayana Kunta. It is further submitted that Government decided to retain the tank i.e., Satyanarayana Kunta by acquiring the bed land of the kunta admeasuring Ac.22.11 gts in Sy.Nos.234 and 228, that the lands stand registered as patta lands, under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to a letter dated 13.02.2006 issued by the Deputy Executive Engineer and Irrigation and Command Area Development to the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO). Relying on the contents of this internal departmental correspondence, it is submitted that a proposal was made by the Deputy Executive Engineer to acquire the lands pertaining to petitioners in Sy.No.223, 224, 225, 226 and 227 to an extent of Ac.4.20 gts, on the premise that the lands are submerged. Further, reliance is placed on a letter from the MRO to the Deputy Executive Engineer to buttress the contention that the land in Sy.Nos.223 to 227 to an extent of Ac.4.20 gts, were submerged in Satyanarayana Kunta and that petitioners have requested the authorities for acquisition. Further, reliance is placed on a letter from the MRO to the Deputy Executive Engineer to buttress the contention that the land in Sy.Nos.223 to 227 to an extent of Ac.4.20 gts, were submerged in Satyanarayana Kunta and that petitioners have requested the authorities for acquisition. The photo copies of pattas pertaining to Sy.Nos.224, 226 and 227 have been annexed to the writ affidavit. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that vide memo, dated 29.03.2004 issued by the Office of Principal Secretary to Government (Irrigation Department), Government decided to retain the tank known as “Satyanarayana Kunta” by acquiring its bed land admeasuring Ac.22-11 gts in Sy.Nos.234 and 228, which are patta lands. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development appearing for respondents submitted that Memo, dated 29.03.2004 issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh, Irrigation and Command Area Development Department shows that the District Collector and Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, have examined the issue and decided that the tank by name “Satyanarayana Kunta” in Kuppenakunta village, Khammam District should be retained. Accordingly, in the Memo, it is directed to acquire only the bed land of the kunta admeasuring Ac.22.11 gts in Sy.Nos.234 and 228, and further directed negotiations with landowners for passing a consent award under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Based on the said memo, it is contended that the Survey numbers of the petitioners’ properties were not mentioned in the Memo. Hence, the submissions of the petitioners’ counsel are not valid. 7. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions. 8. A Memo, dated 29.03.2004 (Ex.P1) was issued, contents of the Memo are as follows:- “In the circumstances explained by the Collector, Khammam District and the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, the matter has been examined in detail. It is decided to retain the tank by name "Satyanarayana Kunta" in Kuppenakunta Village, Khammam District by acquiring the bed land of the Kunta, measuring Ac.22.11 gts in Survey No.234 and 228 which stands registered as a Patta land, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. It is decided to retain the tank by name "Satyanarayana Kunta" in Kuppenakunta Village, Khammam District by acquiring the bed land of the Kunta, measuring Ac.22.11 gts in Survey No.234 and 228 which stands registered as a Patta land, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. The Collector, Khammam District and the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Warangal are therefore requested to negotiate with the owners of the above land and ensure that a consent award is passed u/s 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, so that a reasonable rate of compensation as mutually agreed to can be fixed. 3. While taking action for passing consent award, the Collector, Khammam and the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Warangal are requested to follow the provisions contained in Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also the Andhra Pradesh Land Acquisition (District Level Negotiations Committee) Rules made u/s 55(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in the following notifications issued by the Government from time to time. (i) G.O.Ms.No.1050, Revenue (LA) Deptt. Dt.17.10.1992. (ii) G.O.Ms.No.1286, Revenue (LA) Deptt. Dt.16.12.1993 (iii) G.O.Ms.NO.296, Revenue (LA) Deptt. Dt.17.06.1995. (iv) G.O.Ms.No.594, Revenue (LA) Deptt. Dt.10.08.1998. (v) G.O.Ms.No.2, Revenue (LA) Deptt. Dt.01.01.2002 read with G.O.Ms.No.130, Revenue (LA) Deptt. Dt.21.03.2002. 4. A report may be furnished to Government in this regard.” 9. On a perusal of the Memo, it is apparent that the issue was discussed by the Collector with Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, whether to retain the tank. It was decided to retain the tank known as “Satyanarayana Kunta” in Kuppenakunta village, Khammam District. There was a proposal to acquire Ac.22-11 gts of land in Sy.Nos.234 and 228, which are registered as patta lands under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that negotiations were entered with the pattadars for passing of a consent award under the provisions in Section 11 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 10. These facts are not in dispute. The question which falls for consideration is whether the lands pertaining to the petitioners in survey numbers i.e., Sy.No.223 to 227 have been considered for acquisition or to be acquired for the purpose of retaining “Satyanarayana Kunta” tank. 11. 10. These facts are not in dispute. The question which falls for consideration is whether the lands pertaining to the petitioners in survey numbers i.e., Sy.No.223 to 227 have been considered for acquisition or to be acquired for the purpose of retaining “Satyanarayana Kunta” tank. 11. A letter, dated 13.02.2006, issued by the Deputy Executive Engineer, to the Mandal Revenue Officer (Ex.P2), refers for acquisition of lands in Sy.Nos.223 to 227, a total extent of land Ac.4.20 gts, for the purpose of retaining the tank. This proposal was on the basis of representation of the petitioners’ that their lands were submerged under the “Satyanarayana Kunta” and be acquired. However, the Government Memo is issued on 29.03.2004. No subsequent Memo has been issued incorporating the lands mentioned in the letter dated 13.02.2006. Subsequent to the letter, dated 13.02.2006, no fresh memo is issued incorporating the lands, as mentioned in the letter dated 13.02.2006. No such memo is placed on record by petitioners to substantiate their claim that their lands have been acquired. If at all respondents were of the opinion petitioners’ lands ought to be acquired for the purpose of retaining Satyanarayana Kunta, a fresh Memo would have been issued. In the absence of any such memo brought on record, this issue needs no adjudication. 12. For reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.