K.Narsinga Rao, Hyd And 3 Others v. Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd And 5 Ot
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
[ 31661 HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 6157 OF 2016 Between:
1. K. Narsing Rao, S/o. Balaiah, Age 70 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o.'l 1-5-154' , Y"r$"rffiillflTs:3t Venkanna, Ased 70 years, occ Asicutture, Rr/o. 11-51 54, Moosapet, Hyderabad.
3. C. Narasinga Rao, Sio. Rama Swamy, Aged 65 years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. 1 1 -5-221 I 1, Moosapet, Hyderabad.
4. T. Manimala, Wo. Mohan, Aged 55 years, Occ. Housewife, No. 11-5-22111 , Moosapet' Hyderabad'
...'ETIT'.NERS AND The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.
The District Collector, Lakdikapool, Ranga Reddy District., - The Hyderabad Metro Rail Project Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
The Additional City Pianner, West Zone, GHMC, Kukatpally, [ydepbad The Special Depuiy Collector/Land Acquisition Office, Metro Rail Project Ltd., HYderabad ...RESP.NDENTS ?
tl 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 lssue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not passing the supplementary award in respect of the properties of the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, as illegal, arbitrary, to the provisions of the of the Act 30 of 2013 and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the representation dt. 19-01-201 5 made by the petitioners and pass
supplementary award in accordance with the provisions of the above said Act in respect of the properties acquired for Metro Rail Project l.A. NO: 1 OF 201 6(WPMP. NO: 7819 OF 2016) Petition under Section 15'l 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 6th Respondent to consider the representation dated 09-01-2015 made by the Petitioner'ard pass supplementary award in accordance with the provisions of the R.ight to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitiation and Resettlement Act 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) in respect of the properties of the petitioners, pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. J. VENKATESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Resprondent Nos. 1&3,6: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2&5: SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR' SC FOR MUNICIPALITY Counsel for the Resroondent No.4: SRI P. RADHIVE REDDY, SC The Court made the 1'ollowing: ORDER
TI{E I{ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR wRIT PETITION No.6l57 of 2O16 ORDER:
This matter is listed under the caption "Specially Identified Cases (lnfructuous)" to inform as to whether the cause in the Writ Petition survives for adjudication or not.
2.
Today, when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalfo[ the petitioners. On the previous dates ofhearing also i.e. 29-112024,06-12-2024, 13.12.2024, and 23.12-2024, there was no representation on behalI of the petitioners.
3.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4d respondent has placed befbre this Court the wriften instructions under the signature of 4th respondent.
4.
By' the written instructions, it is stated that tlre authorities have passed an Award dated 30.07.2013 and the petitioners have received compensation in terms of the Award on 22.12.2013 and thus the petitioners cannot seek tbr passing of supplementary Award under Right ( ( to Fair Compensation, and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabititation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act') which has come into force only rvith eft'ect trom 01.01.2024.
5.
Leamed Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents would further submit that since the land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, r gg4, the same wourd get saved by virtue of operation of provisions of Section 24(2) ofthe Act, which position has been crarified by the constitution bench decision of the Apex Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlalr. 6'
In view of the aforesaid submission and taking note of the fact that there has been no appearance on beharforthe petitioners today as we, as on the previous dates ofhearing as noted above, this court is of the view that the petitioners are not interested to pursue the matter. 7'
Therefore, the writ petition is closed. However, riberty is granted to the petitioners ro seek revivar of the writ petition within the period of limitation as applicable for restoration, in the event the cause in the writ Petition survives for adj udication.
As a sequel. miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No costs (2020) I scc 129 SD/.K. SREE RAMA ASSISTANT RE URTHY ]STRAR ,/'
/ \ //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To,
1. One CC to SRr. J VFNKATESWARA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 3: El3 33 3 3Ei y '-?5,0E'il[5By*%j?F, ilunicr;Ar'ii{ ropuc]
4. Two CCs to Gp FoR LAND Acouisriior\Iiiigircourt for the State of _ Telan-g_an_a at Hyderabad tout-- - i ivr! ir rrv'r '|
5. Two CD Copies B tVI BS CA$"
HIGH COUR]'
DATED:30112,12024 s;r r L t\ q i tBtiB 2125
ORDER
'!,* \ * WP.No.6157 of 2016 , osspatc CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUTCOSTS ffi,"