← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/30494/2017dismissed

Ch.Janaka Maharaju, v. State Of Telangana,

2017-09-12P Naveen Rao3 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.30494 OF 2017 DATED : 12.09.2017 Between :

Ch. Janaka Maharaju S/o.Venkata Raju, Aged 61 yrs, Occu : Business, C/o.K.Prasad, Flat No.404, Ashok Regent, Eenadu Colony, Vivekanandanagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad & others.

..

Petitioners And State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad & Others.

.. Respondents This court made the following :

- 2 - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.30494 OF 2017 ORDER :

Heard.

2.

Petitioners claim that they have purchased the extent of lands mentioned in Para No.3 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in Sy.No.213 in Gagillapur Village, in Dindigal Gandimysamma Mandal, Medchal District. The purchases are made by way of registered sale deeds. Petitioners claim that they are in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. This writ petition is instituted contending that the respondent-authorities are insisting the petitioners to vacate from their respective properties in the said survey number and such action is illegal, irrational and contrary to the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

3.

Except for making an averment that they are in possession and that they have validly purchased the lands from their vendor, no other material is brought on record to show that they are in physical possession. It is also not clear as to whether the land still remains as an agricultural land or the same is converted into residential colony. If it is converted into residential colony, there has to be some kind of approval for conversion and approval of lay out for construction of houses.

- 3 - 4.

Since no material is brought on record to show their occupation and on the mere allegation of alleged interference, no direction as sought for can be granted.

5.

Thus, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies, as available in law, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 12th September 2017 Rds