Telangana High Court
Thaduri Praveen And 12 Others vs State Of Telangana And 6 Others on 10 July, 2020
Bench: Chief Justice, M.S. Ramachandra Rao
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
Writ Petition Nos.3420 of 2019, 9146 of 2019,
and 25664 of 2019
Between:
1. Ittireddy Mangavva,
W/o.Malla Reddy, Aged : 41 years;
R/o.Kochhaguttapalli Village,
Chelakalapally Panchayat,
Chinnakodur Mandal,
Siddipet District (Erstwhile Medak) and
others.
...Petitioners
And
1. State of Telangana,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department (L.A. & J.A.),
Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad, and others
...Respondents
Date of Judgment pronounced on : 10.07.2020
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
And
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes
to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether His Lordships wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No
Of the Judgment?
MSR,J & KL,J
::2:: wp_3420_2019&batch
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
Writ Petition Nos.3420 of 2019, 9146 of 2019,
and 25664 of 2019
% 10.07.2020
# Ittireddy Mangavva, W/o.Malla Reddy,
and others
...Petitioners
And
$ State of Telangana,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
and others
...Respondents
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
!Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Ch. Ravi Kumar
^Counsel for the respondents : Learned Advocate-General.
? Cases referred
1. (2009) 14 SCC 54
2. (2010) 7 SCC 129
3. (2011) 7 S.C.C. 639
4. MANU/SC/0300/2020
5. (1986) 3 SCC 156 at para 89 p.216
6. (2013) SCC online P & H 26646
7. (2016) 11 SCC 378
8. (2010) 7 SCC 1
9. (2012) 3 SCC 1
10. (2012) 10 SCC 1
11. (2014) 9 SCC 516
MSR,J & KL,J
::3:: wp_3420_2019&batch
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
Writ Petition Nos.3420 of 2019, 9146 of 2019,
and 25664 of 2019
COMMON ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao) Kochhaguttapalli village is a hamlet of Allipur village, Chelkalapalli Gram Panchayat, Chinnakodur Mandal in Siddipet District of the Telangana State.
2. The State proposed to acquire agricultural lands and houses of the petitioners in this village for Anatagirisagar Reservoir (also called as Annapurna Reservoir).
3. The Anatagirisagar Reservoir is one of a series of reservoirs proposed by the State of Telangana as part of Kaleswaram Irrigation Project.
4. Under this project, the water from the river Godavari would be transported for drinking and agricultural purposes through a series of lifts for storage and distribution of water from a place called Medigadda situated in Jayashankar Bhupalpally District; and the said project envisages construction of reservoirs in Siddipet District such as Ananthagirisagar Reservoir (3.5 TMC), Ranganayakasagar Reservoir (3 TMC), Sri Komaravelli Mallanna Sagar Reservoir (50 TMC) and Kondapochamma Sagar Reservoir (15 TMC).
MSR,J & KL,J
::4:: wp_3420_2019&batch
5. It is not in dispute that under the Kaleswaram Irrigation project, the Godavari River water would flow from Medigadda to Kondapochammasagar through Mid-Manair, Anantagirisagar and Ranganayaka sagar reservoirs.
6. The water would be lifted from Medigadda (the Zero point) where the Full Reservoir Level (FRL) is 100 m to Kondapochammasagar whose FRL is 618m i.e., the water is lifted 518 m vertically in a phased manner
- reservoir after reservoir.
7. Water from these reservoirs would be utilized in the said district and would also be supplied to more than 9 neighboring districts for agriculture purpose, besides supply of drinking water to the State Capital of Hyderabad. It is a prestigious project undoubtedly conceived in public interest.
8. The agricultural lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired in July, 2016 through a process of 'voluntary acquisition' i.e by entering into agreements/ sale deeds with allegedly 'willing' farmers invoking a G.O.Ms.No.123 Revenue (JA&LA) Department dt.30.7.2015.
9. This G.O.Ms.No.123 dt.30.07.2015 contemplates a consensual sale of lands by land owners to the State for a consideration to be voluntarily agreed by the land owner and the Procurement Agency. It's contents will be discussed more in detail later in this order.
10. Later in 2017, the houses of the petitioners were sought to be acquired by invoking Act 30 of 2013.
MSR,J & KL,J
::5:: wp_3420_2019&batch
WP.No.3420 of 2019 filed in February,2019
11. According to the petitioners in WP.No.3420 of 2019, initial notification for purchase of their agricultural lands was issued invoking G.O.Ms.No.123 dt.30.07.2015 in File No.G3/1990/2016 dt.29.05.2016 by the Office of the District Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy (published on 30.05.2016 in the local newspapers) (Ex.P.1) even before the petitioners gave consent for selling their agricultural lands to the State by wrongly mentioning in the said Notification that the petitioners had given such consent; that petitioners were informed that their lands would be submerged under the proposed Anantagirisagar Reservoir as part of the Kaleswaram Project and petitioners had no option but to surrender their lands for the rate of Rs.6 lakh per acre offered by the Government; that petitioners were not told anything about their rights and they felt threatened and helpless as their lands were already notified in the Notification G3/1990/2016 dt.29.05.2016 published on 30.05.2016 in the local newspapers (Ex.P.1); that the officials threatened that if they did not agree, their agricultural lands would be acquired under Act 30 of 2013 in which case they will only get Rs.2 lakh per acre as compensation; that petitioners were not given any time or opportunity to take legal advice as police had clamped Section 144 Cr.P.C. in the area restricting entry of outsiders; and petitioners were forced to sign agreements which were in English language, which the petitioners did not understand. Copy of one such sale deed dt.13.07.2006 executed by 6th petitioner and his family members is filed as Ex.P.5.
MSR,J & KL,J
::6:: wp_3420_2019&batch
12. They contended that no official explained the contents of the agreements / sale deeds to them, that they were called to the Sub- Registrar's Office in July, 2016 and made to sign the documents. According to them, no amount was paid for structures or trees in their lands and they were informed that they would be paid the same later after conducting of survey and enumeration of the structures and trees.
13. Petitioners contend that the respondent-authorities told them while entering into agreement that as per G.O.Ms.No.123, the consideration / sale price mentioned in the agreements will not include R & R Entitlements or values of structures and trees and that possession of their lands would be taken only after payment of R & R Entitlements to the land owners as well as landless persons dependent upon the lands.
14. It is stated that in December, 2018 local Revenue and Irrigation officials informed them that they should stop cultivation of their lands after the Kharif season and that their lands would be taken away after the Sankranthi Festival of 2019 in January, 2019 and that they refused to pay Rehabilitation & Resettlement (for short 'R & R') entitlements to the petitioners on the ground that the consideration paid to the petitioners was all inclusive.
15. Petitioners contend that respondents cannot give effect to the sale deeds and take possession of the lands without completing R & R entitlements to all eligible project-effected families.
16. Petitioners further contended that a notification dt.20.12.2017 under Section 11 (1) of the Act 30 of 2013 was issued for acquisition of MSR,J & KL,J ::7:: wp_3420_2019&batch houses of the petitioners citing submergence under the same Reservoir and it was published on 28.12.2017 in Gazette No.291/2017 and also in the Eenadu Telugu newspaper.
17. According to them, no Grama Sabha was conducted under Section 11(2) and there was no wide publicity for the same and so the petitioners could not object to it under Section 15 within the time; that this notification lapsed by 26.12.2018 as no orders extending it under II Proviso to Section 19(7) were passed, and consequently the said Section 11(1) notification became illegal and invalid.
18. Petitioners also contend that deprivation of their houses by the respondents occurring in December, 2017 by virtue of the above notification, also entitles them to separate R & R entitlements in addition to R & R entitlements which they would have got for deprivation of their lands in July, 2016; and without paying them these entitlements, they cannot be dispossessed.
19. In W.P.No.3420 of 2019, the petitioners question (a) the validity of action of respondents in dispossessing the petitioners from their lands in Allipur revenue Village, Chinnakodur Mandal, Siddipet District procured under G.O.Ms.No.123 dt.30.7.2015 vide File No.G3/1990/2016 dt.29.5.2016; (b) the action of the respondents in proceeding with the acquisition of houses and structures of petitioners in Kochhaguttapalli village, H/o Allipur , Chelkalapalli Gram Panchayat, Chinnakodur Mandal, Siddipet District based on a lapsed notification issued under Sec.11(1) of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and MSR,J & KL,J ::8:: wp_3420_2019&batch Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act 30 of 2013') and which was published vide Gazette No.291/2017 dt.20.12.2017 pursuant to District Collector's File No.G1/158/2017 dt.20.12.2017; (c) the denial of Rehabilitation and Resettlement entitlements to the petitioners as per the Act before taking physical possession of their lands and houses under Section 31-A introduced in the Act by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Telangana Amendment) Act, 2016 (Act 21 of 2017). WP.No.9146 of 2019 filed in April,2019
20. In Writ Petition No.9146 of 2019 the petitioners reiterated the pleas raised by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.3420 of 2019.
21. They also referred to an extension order allegedly issued on 28.02.2019 of the Section 11(1) notification dt.20.12.2017 proposing to acquire the houses of the petitioners referred to above, and contended that such extension cannot be made after the expiry / lapse of the said notification on 26.12.2018. They also referred to notices dt.12.04.2019 issued by the Special Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition, Unit-I, Siddipet regarding the holding of Grama Sabha on 15.04.2019 and a proposed public hearing on 02.05.2019 by the Project Administrator / Joint Collector, Siddipet into the representations and objections raised in the Grama Sabha and contend that the illegality of the same was also brought to the notice of the respondents in the Grama Sabha. Reference is also made to written representation dt.22.04.2019 (Ex.P.4) submitted by the MSR,J & KL,J ::9:: wp_3420_2019&batch petitioners objecting to the proposed action of the respondents and requesting them not to proceed further on the basis of the lapse of Section 11(1) notification.
22. In W.P.9146 of 2019, the petitioners question the action of the respondents in proceeding with the acquisition of houses and structures of petitioners in Kochhaguttapalli village, H/o Allipur, Chelkalapalli Gram Panchayat, Chinnakodur Mandal, Siddipet District based on a lapsed notification issued under Sec.11(1) of the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 and which was published vide Gazette No.291/2017 dt.20.12.2017 pursuant to District Collector's File No.G1/158/2017 dt.20.12.2017. W.P.No.25664 of 2019 filed in November,2019
23. In November, 2019, W.P.No.25664 of 2019 was filed alleging that there is discrimination shown to unmarried adult members of the families of project affected persons in relation of award of Rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements as per the Act as compared to married members of such families.
24. Petitioners in this writ petition are majors but unmarried persons living along with their parents in Kochaguttapally Village, Chinnakodur Mandal, Siddipet District. The agricultural lands in the said village were acquired for the purpose of construction of Ananthagirisagar Reservoir invoking G.O.Ms.No.123 dt.30.07.2015 in July, 2016 allegedly by voluntary sale.
MSR,J & KL,J
::10:: wp_3420_2019&batch
25. Petitioners contend that they were working in the lands of their parents and others in the said village and earning their livelihood and contributing it to the income of their families. Because of acquisition of agricultural lands of their parents and others, they contend that they lost their livelihood opportunities as well as income; that they were also informed about acquisition of the houses under the Notification dt.20.12.2017 issued under Section 11(1) of Act 30 of 2013, which was published on 28.12.2017 in Eenadu Telugu Newspaper. They contend that there was no local publication done, no Grama Sabha was conducted and they could not file objections within the stipulated time of 60 days. According to them, the names of their parents in whose names the said houses stand were mentioned in the notification issued under Section 11(1) of the Act. They contend that no declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act was issued, but a copy of socio-economic survey report was placed in the panchayat mentioning their names as part of the family of their parents, though they were majors.
26. They contend that as per Section 2(m) of the Act 30 of 2013 and explanation thereto, they have to be treated as a "separate family" for the purpose of R & R entitlements.
27. They contend that when they approached the respondents, the respondents informed that the said aspect did not matter.
28. According to them, the respondents had declared a package of Rs.5 lakhs and a plot of 250 sq. yards to be given as R & R package to adult MSR,J & KL,J ::11:: wp_3420_2019&batch unmarried members, like the petitioners, but not the full-fledged R & R package to be given to a family under the Act.
29. Counsel for the petitioners referred to G.O.Rt.No.282 Irrigation & CAD(LA.R&R/A2) Department dt.11.07.2019, which directs that the Government would pay Rs.7,50,000/- per family and Rs.5,00,000/- only to unmarried youth, who have crossed 18 years of age, along with either the allotment of open plot or 250 sq. yards or construction of 2BHK house or payment of Rs.5.04 lakh amount in lieu of 2BHK house in respect of Kochaguttapally habitation and contended that discrimination is being shown to petitioners, who are unmarried adult members of project affected families.
30. They contend that without paying the R&R entitlements under Act 30 of 2013 as amended by Act 21 of 2017, the respondents threaten to release water into the Ananthagiri Reservoir by 3rd or 4th week of November, 2019 and this would result in submergence of their houses and they had not entered into any voluntary agreement with the government to leave their houses. They contend that they cannot be forcibly evicted by the respondents unless they are paid full R & R package of Rs.7,50,000/- and are also given double bed room house as per the Act 30 of 2013 as amended by Act 21 of 2017.
31. They therefore sought a Writ of Mandamus to declare the said action of the respondents in denying them R & R benefits on par with married members of project affected families as arbitrary, illegal and MSR,J & KL,J ::12:: wp_3420_2019&batch unconstitutional, contrary to Act 30 of 2013 and direct the respondents to pay/give them the said benefits.
Events after filing of these Writ petitions
32. On 29.4.2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.9146 of 2019, a learned single Judge of this Court recorded a prima facie finding about the lapsing of the notification dt.20.12.2017 issued under Section 11(1) of the Act by 26.12.2018 for acquiring the houses of the petitioners therein and granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the said notification.
33. On 06.12.2019, the Green Bench of this Court passed a Common Order in WP.No.s 7549, 10393, 11714, 9146, 3420, 26421 and 13252 of 2019 stating that water be not released into the Ananthagirisagar Reservoir till the following week when the Bench proposed to hear it.
34. This interim order was subsequently extended on 20.12.2019 for three weeks, on 03.01.2020 up to 24.01.2020, on 29.01.2020 till 05.02.2020, on 05.02.2020 for two weeks, and on 19.02.2020 for two weeks in WP.No.3420 of 2019.
35. This interim order was subsequently extended on 20.12.2019 for three weeks, on 03.01.2020 up to 24.01.2020, on 29.01.2020 till 05.02.2020, on 05.02.2020 for two weeks, on 19.02.2020 for two weeks, on 26.02.2020 for two weeks, and on 11.03.2020 for four weeks in WP.No.9146 of 2019.
MSR,J & KL,J
::13:: wp_3420_2019&batch
36. Thereafter, as per orders dt.27.03.2020 in WP (Urgent) 1 of 2020 of a Full Bench of this Court presided over by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, in the circumstances prevalent because of the Corona Virus Pandemic, all interim orders were extended up to 07.06.2020. (Annexure
- I to this order)
37. However notwithstanding the said interim orders dt.6.12.2019, water was admittedly released into the Anantgirisagar reservoir on 18.4.2020 (according to counter filed by the respondents in WP.No.3420 and 9146 of 2019).
38. According to the petitioners, on the midnight of 19.4.2020, they were all forcibly evicted from their houses by the respondents with the help of about 500 police men, the petitioners were not even allowed to take their belongings from their houses, and their houses were demolished.
Urgent Memo in USR.No.19691/2020 filed by counsel for petitioners on 20.4.2020
39. An Urgent Memo in USR.No.19691/2020 was filed by the counsel for the petitioners in WP.No.s 3420 of 2019 and 9146 of 2019 on 20.04.2020 bringing on record the coercion exercised by the respondents and in particular, by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, for the previous four to five days on the petitioners forcing them to enter into agreements with the State Government and accept the compensation and R&R amounts offered by the Government; that some of the petitioners, unable to withstand the immense pressure and threats of demolition of their houses, signed on blank agreements, which were in English, and MSR,J & KL,J ::14:: wp_3420_2019&batch received cheques for certain amounts; that on the late afternoon of 19.04.2020, about 300 to 400 police in several vehicles arrived near the houses of the petitioners, confined the petitioners, who did not enter into agreements, in their houses, and did not allow any one from outside to enter the village; that many petitioners, under the said coercion, were forced to sign the agreements; that police and officials of the revenue department forcibly removed furniture, material and goods in the houses of the petitioners, dragged the petitioners out of their houses and demolished them in the middle of the night of 19.04.2020 rendering them shelterless.
40. It was also stated that that petitioners 9 to 11 in WP.No.9146 of 2019 and petitioners 1, 5, 6, 11, 13, 14, 25, 26, 29 in WP.No.3420 of 2019 were forcibly evicted from their houses and they were demolished rendering them shelterless; petitioners in WP.No.25664 of 2019, who were project displaced persons, were also rendered homeless by the respondents without providing them their lawful R&R entitlements; and that some of the petitioners by name Thaduri Narsaiah, Thaduri Laxmi, Kommagalla Narsavva, Kommagalla Lakshmi, Thaduri Lachavva, Lakke Narsaiah, Elkathurthi Lakshman, Elkathurthi Narsavva, Thaduri Nagaraju, Thaduri Mallavva and Thaduri Eshwar, (petitioner No.s 5, 11 to 14, 25, 26 and 29 in WP.No.3420 of 2019 and petitioners No.9 to 11 in WP.No.9146 of 2019) belong to the Scheduled Caste community and their eviction in the above manner would attract the provisions of the SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.
MSR,J & KL,J
::15:: wp_3420_2019&batch
41. On 21.04.2020, the Bench presided over by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice took the said Urgent Memo on record and directed the Advocate General to file his counter to the allegations made in the said Memo filed by the counsel for the petitioner and adjourned the matter to 24.04.2020.
42. On 24.04.2020, a common counter affidavit dt.23.04.2020 was filed on behalf of respondent No.6 by the Advocate General in WP.No.3420 and 9146 of 2019. The contents of this counter affidavit will be discussed later.
43. On 24.04.2020, the Bench presided over by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice directed listing of WP.No.25664 of 2019 along with WP.No.3420 of 2019 and WP.No.9146 of 2019 on 30.04.2020, obviously satisfied about the urgent need to hear these matters, and directed the counsel for the petitioners to file his rejoinder by then.
44. When the matter was listed on 30.04.2020, the counsel for the petitioners informed the Court that because of lockdown imposed by the State and the Central Governments, he could not meet his clients and permission should be accorded for his clients to meet him. The Division Bench directed the State to ensure that the petitioners are able to come to Hyderabad to meet the counsel for the petitioners and adjourned the matter to 13.05.2020.
45. On 12.05.2020, the counsel for the petitioners filed his rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.6.
MSR,J & KL,J
::16:: wp_3420_2019&batch
The part hearing of these matters on 13.5.2020 by this Bench
46. On 13.05.2020, these three matters were listed before this Bench and arguments of counsel for petitioner were heard. At request of the learned Advocate General, who stated that he had not read the files, the matter had been posted to 19.05.2020.
47. On 13.5.2020, WP.No.s 37769 of 2017, 16344 of 2019, 21740 of 2019 and 27575 of 2019 also relating to acquisition of lands for the same Anathagirisagar Reservoir had been listed and were heard in part and adjourned to 14.5.2020 at the request of the Advocate General, who again stated that he had not read the papers in those cases.
48. On 14.05.2020, a Memo (Annexure - II to this order) was filed by the Advocate General not only in the instant three writ petitions, but also the writ petitions referred to in para 39 above, and seeking adjournment of all these matters till the High Court is reopened for regular functioning after pandemic ceases stating that it would be difficult to advance arguments for final hearing in these Writ Petitions, at that time.
49. Counsel for the petitioners filed a reply to the said memo on 15.05.2020 (Annexure - III to this order) refuting the said allegations and pointing out the injustice that would be caused to the petitioners, who had already been evicted forcibly on 19.04.2020 in the midnight and were made to sign agreements under coercion by the respondents.
MSR,J & KL,J
::17:: wp_3420_2019&batch
50. Section 38 of Act 30 of 2013 which states :
"38. Power to take possession of land to be acquired: (1) The Collector shall take possession of land after ensuring that full payment of compensation as well as rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements are paid or tendered to the entitled persons within a period of three months for the compensation and a period of six months for the monetary part of rehabilitation and resettlements entitlements listed in the Second Schedule commencing from the date of the award made under section 30:
Provided that the components of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Package in the Second and Third Schedules that relate to infrastructural entitlements shall be provided within a period of eighteen months from the date of the award:
Provided further that in case of acquisition of land for irrigation or hydel project, being a public purpose, the rehabilitation and resettlement shall be completed six months prior to submergence of the lands acquired.
(2) The Collector shall be responsible for ensuring that the rehabilitation and resettlement process is completed in all its aspects before displacing the affected families."
When,
(a) the very purpose of the Act 30 of 2013 is to lessen the hardship of owners of land;
(b) Section 38 in fact mandates that the land owner can only be dispossessed by the Collector after ensuring full payment of compensation as well as rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements are paid or tendered to the entitled persons within a period of three months for the compensation and a period of six months for the monetary part of rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements listed in the 2nd Schedule to the Act;
MSR,J & KL,J
::18:: wp_3420_2019&batch
(c) the 2nd proviso to Section 38 states that in case of acquisition
of land for irrigation or hydel project, the rehabilitation and resettlement shall be completed six months prior to submergence of the lands acquired; and
(d) it is admitted in para no.2 of the Memo that the previous Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice had permitted the State to release water into the subject lands which were acquired for the purpose of Kaleswaram Lift Irrigation Project (Order dt.01.05.2020 in W.P.No.35059 of 2017, 7549, 10393 and 11714 of 2019- Annexure IV to this order) (the Anatagirisagar reservoir was inaugurated on 18.4.2020 itself according to the counter filed in W.P.Nos.3420 and 9146 of 2019 by 6th respondent on behalf of all respondents and water was released to submerge the agricultural lands and houses of petitioners), resulting in their dispossession, the learned Advocate-General cannot contend that this Bench should ignore the mandate of the statute contained in Section 38 (to dispossess only after payment of compensation and R & R benefits), that it should also ignore the timelines specified in it including the timeline for R & R mentioned in the 2nd proviso i.e to ensure R & R payments entitlements are settled 6 months before submergence of the lands acquired, and simply adjourn the matter to an unknown future date.
In fact, it is the above considerations which appear to have persuaded the Bench presided by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, to treat these MSR,J & KL,J ::19:: wp_3420_2019&batch matters too as urgent and list them on 20.4.2020 (though as per the High Court notification ROC.No.394/SO/2020 dt.13.4.2020 [Annexure - V to this order] valid till 30.4.2020, only dire urgent matters were to be taken up) so that the State can advance submissions and the matters can be disposed of before the release of water by the inauguration of the Ananthasagar Reservoir and the Kondapochammasagar Reservoir.
We may point out that the learned Advocate General not only did not object to the listing of these matters on 20.4.2020 for hearing before the Division bench presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, though there was a lockdown in force, but in fact he, on behalf of the respondents, wanted the listing of the matters urgently for disposal before the inauguration of the Anantagirsagar Reservoir. Listing of the matters on 15.6.2020 before this Bench
51. The instant three Writ Petitions were not listed for one month thereafter and came to be listed before this Bench which had been specially constituted (Annexure - VI - Cause-list dt.15.06.2020) (the regular Bench as per Roster notified by the High Court being one of us (MSR,J) with Justice Amarnath Goud since 18.5.2020), only on 15.06.2020, a Monday.
52. By that time, the High Court had cancelled it's summer vacation (Annexure - VII - Notification R.O.C.No.1202/SO/2019, DT.29.04.2020) and was hearing all matters regularly by way of video conferencing. So the State or the Advocate General cannot plead any difficulty in arguing the matters since the petitioners were already evicted MSR,J & KL,J ::20:: wp_3420_2019&batch by then and they allege coercion in their dispossession of lands and houses.
53. The cause list for hearing of the instant part-heard Writ Petitions by this Bench on 15.6.2020 had been notified on the evening of 12.06.2020 itself.
54. Yet, when the matter was listed at 10.30 a.m. on 15.06.2020 before this Special Bench, Sri B.Ramulu, an Assistant Government Pleader representing the Advocate General sought adjournment on the ground that counter affidavit was not filed in WP.No.25664 of 2019, the connected Writ Petition.
55. This request was refused pointing out that there is grave urgency in the matter in view of the release of water into the Ananthagirisagar Reservoir on 18.04.2020 itself (as per the counter of the 6th respondent in WP.No.s3420 and 9146 of 2019) and in view of the urgency noted by the earlier Bench presided over by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 24.04.2020 to list these matters on 30.04.2020 and also taking note of the fact that these matters had been heard in part by this Bench on 13.05.2020 itself.
56. This Bench also took note of the fact that for the previous seven months, though several opportunities had been given in WP.No.25664 of 2019 on 21.11.2019, 20.12.2019, 03.01.2020, and 30.04.2020, they had not been availed of by the respondents.
MSR,J & KL,J
::21:: wp_3420_2019&batch
57. So the counsel for the petitioners was heard and the matter was directed to be called at 2.30 p.m. to hear the submissions of the learned Advocate General.
58. At 02:30 p.m. on 15.06.2020, the learned Advocate - General appeared before this Bench through video-conferencing and stated again that he had not read the papers in these cases and again sought adjournment.
59. This request was rejected as it was considered to be not bona fide for the following reasons:
(a) This was a Special Bench specifically constituted to hear these matters on 15.06.2020 by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice and the cause-list had been put up on the website of the High Court on Friday (12.06.2020) itself. Therefore, the learned Advocate-General had the week-end, i.e., Saturday (13.06.2020) and Sunday (14.06.2020) to prepare for these matters and make submissions.
(b) On the earlier occasion when these matters were listed on 13.05.2020 also the learned Advocate-General had stated that he was not ready to argue these matters as he had not read the papers and the matters were adjourned to 19.05.2020, but they were listed on 15.06.2020 more than one month later from 13.05.2020, but again he stated that he had not read the papers and wanted an adjournment.
60. These cases were then reserved for orders.
Consideration of cases on merits
61. For an Indian farmer like the petitioners, deprivation of agricultural land is traumatic, more so, when compensation as per the MSR,J & KL,J ::22:: wp_3420_2019&batch Law of the land is not paid at the earliest and proper Resettlement and Rehabilitation, as per law, is not done.
62. In Land Acquisition Officer v. Mahboob1 the travails of a poor farmer who loses his land for a project under the earlier Land Acquisition Act,1894 were highlighted in the following manner by the Supreme Court:
"14. ... The Collector (LAO) is supposed to offer a fair compensation by taking all relevant circumstances relating to market value into account.
15. To safeguard the interests of the landloser, the Act requires the Collector to make the award before the landowner is dispossessed. The intention is that the landloser will immediately be able to draw compensation and purchase some other suitable land or make appropriate arrangements for his livelihood. But in practice the Collectors (LAOs) seldom make reasonable offers. They tend to err on the 'safer' side and invariably assess very low compensation. Such meagre awards force the landloser to seek reference to the civil court for increase in compensation in regard to almost every award made by the LAO. In fact, many a time, even the Reference Courts are conservative in estimating the market value and it requires further appeals by the landloser to the High Court and the Supreme Court to get just compensation for the land.
16. We can take judicial notice of the fact that in several States the awards of the Reference Court or the judgments of the High Court and this Court increasing the compensation, are not complied with and the landlosers are again driven to courts to initiate time-consuming execution process (which also involves considerable expense by way of lawyer's fee) to recover what is justly due. Resultantly the landlosers seldom get a substantial portion of proper compensation for their land in one lump sum immediately after the acquisition.
1
(2009) 14 SCC 54
MSR,J & KL,J
::23:: wp_3420_2019&batch
As the landowner does not get the full compensation in one lump sum, he is not in a position to purchase an alternative land.
When the land is acquired, he loses his means of livelihood, as he knows no other type of work. The result is, he is forced to spend the compensation received in piecemeal, on sustenance of his family when he fights the legal battles for increasing the compensation and for recovering the increases granted, by levying execution. The result is that whatever compensation is received piecemeal, gets spent for the sustenance of the family, and litigation cost during the course of prolonged litigation. At the end of the legal battle, he is hardly left with any money to purchase alternative land and by then the prices of land would have also increased manifold, making it impossible to purchase even a fraction of the land which he originally possessed. Illiteracy, ignorance, and lack of counselling add to his woes and the piecemeal compensation is dissipated leaving him with neither land, nor money to buy alternative land, nor any means of livelihood. In short, he is stripped of his land and livelihood." (emphasis supplied)
63. This was reiterated and followed in Bondu Ramaswamy v. Bangalore Development Authority2 in the following terms :
"150. Frequent complaints and grievances in regard to the following five areas, with reference to the prevailing system of acquisitions governed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, requires the urgent attention of the State Governments and Development Authorities:
(i) absence of proper or adequate survey and planning before embarking upon acquisition;
(ii) indiscriminate use of emergency provisions in Section 17 of the LA Act;
(iii) notification of areas far larger than what is actually required, for acquisition, and then making arbitrary deletions and withdrawals from the acquisitions;
2
(2010) 7 SCC 129
MSR,J & KL,J
::24:: wp_3420_2019&batch
(iv) offer of very low amount as compensation by Land Acquisition Collectors, necessitating references to court in almost all cases;
(v) inordinate delay in payment of compensation; and
(vi) absence of any rehabilitatory measures.
While the plight of project oustees and land losers affected by acquisition for industries has been frequently highlighted in the media, there has been very little effort to draw attention to the plight of farmers affected by frequent acquisitions for urban development."
64. In State of M.P. Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and another3, the Supreme Court explained the importance of Rehabilitation and Resettlement of land losers and other affected people when land is acquired by the State for public purpose. It declared that for people whose lives and livelihoods are intrinsically connected to the land, the economic and cultural shift to a market economy can be traumatic; that though the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution in the case of land acquisition is unsustainable, still they are entitled to resettlement and rehabilitation as per the policy framed for the oustees of the project; mere payment of compensation would not be enough in case the oustee is unable to purchase the land with the compensation received by him; that in the process of development, the State cannot be permitted to displace tribal people, a vulnerable section of society, suffering from poverty and ignorance, without taking appropriate remedial measures of rehabilitation; that 'rehabilitation', is restoration of status of something loss, displaced or even otherwise a grant to secure a dignified mode of life to a person who has nothing to 3 (2011) 7 S.C.C. 639 MSR,J & KL,J ::25:: wp_3420_2019&batch sustain himself and is different from 'compensation'; that this concept brings within its fold the presence of elements of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; and those who have been rendered destitute, have to be assured a permanent source of basic livelihood to sustain themselves. It clarified that rehabilitation has to be done to the extent of displacement that it is compensatory in nature with a view to ensure that the oustee and his family are at least restored to the status that was existing on the date of commencement of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
65. Taking note of these decisions, the Parliament in 2013 enacted the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
66. In the 'Statements of Objects and Reasons' to Act 30 of 2013 it is stated :
"... ... In order to streamline the provisions of the Act causing less hardships to the owners of the land and other persons dependent upon such land, it is proposed repeal the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and to replace it with adequate provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement for the affected persons and their families."
67. Interpreting the Act 30 of 2013, recently a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others4 held that higher compensation to the land owner apart from rehabilitation is provided in the said Act and the Court has to give a full and meaningful effect to the Legislative intent. It declared: 4
MANU/SC/0300/2020 MSR,J & KL,J ::26:: wp_3420_2019&batch "93. Undoubtedly the Act of 2013 has provided safeguards, in the form of higher compensation and provisions for rehabilitation, which are necessary. In that light, the court has to interpret its provisions, to give full and meaningful effect to the legislative intent keeping in mind the language and tenor of the provisions, it is not for the court to legislate. The Court can only iron out creases to clear ambiguity. The intended benefit should not be taken away." (emphasis supplied)
68. In the light of the above legal position and Section 38 of Act 30 of 2013, referred to earlier by us, we shall now consider the rival contentions.
69. We would like to briefly mention about G.O.Ms.No.123 dt.30.07.2015 under which the respondents claim to have taken the lands of the petitioners.
70. This G.O. was issued to expeditiously procure land for public projects after coming into operation of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30 of 2013) from 01.01.2014 with the ostensible purpose to purchase lands from land owners who are expected to voluntarily agree to sell their lands, which would otherwise require to be acquired under Act 30 of 2013.
G.O.Ms.No.123
71. This G.O. contemplates participation of land owners 'willingly' by selling their land and properties for a consideration on the basis of an agreement between them and the user department/undertaking/society/authority referred to as the 'Procuring MSR,J & KL,J ::27:: wp_3420_2019&batch Agency' and as approved by the District Level Land Procurement Committee (DLLPC).
72. It lays down the procedure to procure land from 'willing land owners'. There would be a process of ascertainment by the District Collector of willingness of land owners for sale of land on receipt of information of need for land for public development purpose from the Procuring Agency; a District Level Land Procurement Committee consisting of the District Collector of the concerned district (Chairman), the Joint Collector of the District (Member), Land Procurement Officer i.e., SDCs/RDO (Convenor), SE/EE of Roads and Buildings (Member), Representative of the Procuring Agency (Member) and District Registrar (Member) would be constituted; the Land Procurement Officer would place all connected records of enquiry, valuation statements, encumbrances of preceding 12 years and other relevant records before the said Committee; the Committee would negotiate with the persons interested or authorized by them; the proceedings or deliberations of the Committee would be recorded/minuted; an agreement in Form 1 would be prepared which would be attested by all the Members; and after attesting Form 1, the Convenor would obtain affidavits from the concerned interested persons on the same day in Form II; once the agreement is reached, the Collector after executing agreements in Form I and Form II shall publish the details of the land owners including others and their respective shares in two newspapers inviting claims and objections within 15 days of publication of such notification; and after receipt of objections/claims, the Committee would examine and approve MSR,J & KL,J ::28:: wp_3420_2019&batch the consideration as detailed at para 2(viii) of the said G.O. for sale of land by individual land owners.
73. Para 2(viii) of the said G.O. states:
"The consideration as agreed by the individual land owner/owners and Procuring Agency before the District Level Land Procurement Committee shall inter-alia, include the value of land and property, perceived loss of livelihood, equivalent costs required for rehabilitation and resettlement of willing land owners and others."
74. Subsequently vide G.O.Ms.No.214, Revenue (JA&LA) Department, dt.28.11.2015, the words "equivalent costs required for rehabilitation and resettlement of willing land owners and others"
occurring in para 2(viii) of the G.O.Ms.No.123 dt.30.07.2015 were deleted.
75. Consequently the consideration which would be paid to a willing land owner for selling his land would include only value of the land and property, perceived loss of livelihood only and not equivalent costs required for rehabilitation and resettlement of willing land owners and others.
76. An affidavit is obtained from a land owner that he would have no right to further enhancement of consideration finalized by the Committee to any other forum [para 2(ix) of G.O.Ms.No.123] and on signing of agreement, the District Collector would ensure registration of the conveyance deed/sale deed in favour of the Procuring Agency duly making online payment of consideration. [para 2(xi) of G.O.Ms.No.123].
MSR,J & KL,J
::29:: wp_3420_2019&batch
Telangana State Amendment Act 21 of 2017
77. Thereafter Act 30 of 2013 was amended by the Telangana State Legislature by Act 21 of 2017 w.e.f. 01.01.2014 and Section 30A (providing for acquisition of land by State Government by entering into agreement with a willing land owner) and Section 31-A (which provided for lumpsum amount in lieu of rehabilitation and resettlement which shall not be abnormally at variance to the disadvantage of the disaffected families) were inserted into Act 30 of 2013 for the State of Telengana.
78. Under this amendment Act, G.O.Ms.No.120, Revenue (JA & LA) Department dt.30.6.2017 was issued laying down the Telangana State Land Acquisition (Consent Award, Voluntary Acquisition and Lumpsum Payment towards Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Rules, 2017.
79. Proviso to Rule 15 stated as under:
"Provided that the considerations ordered to land owners shall be higher than what could have been arrived under the provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 read with rules 26 to 28 of the Telangana State Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2014."
80. Proviso to Rule 18 contains a similar provision while dealing with lumpsum payment towards R & R, and states :
"Provided that the lumpsum payment shall be higher than what could have been arrived under the provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 read with rules 26 to 28 of MSR,J & KL,J ::30:: wp_3420_2019&batch the Telangana State Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2014."
So, the land owner has to be offered both compensation and R & R benefits more than what he would have got under Act 30 of 2013.
Regarding Compensation for lands of petitioners in WP.NO.3420 of 2019
81. It is not in dispute that the agricultural lands of the petitioners in WP.No.3420 of 2019 were allegedly taken in July, 2016 by the respondents for the Anantagirisagar Reservoir invoking G.O.Ms.No.123 dt.30.7.2015 and such acquisition was allegedly a voluntary acquisition.
82. Petitioners in W.P.No.3420 of 2019 specifically contended in para- 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that an initial notification in file No.G3/1990/2016 dt.29.5.2016 was issued by the District Collector invoking the said G.O. for acquiring their agricultural land even before petitioners gave any consent.
83. This allegation is not denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf in W.P.No.3420 of 2019 and W.P.No.9146 of 2019. No material is produced by the respondents to show that petitioners voluntarily gave consent.
84. No material is placed along with the counter-affidavit to show how the compensation / price was arrived at or that petitioners voluntarily gave their willingness to sell their land to the State. No record pertaining to the Registration Department showing the market value of the lands as on the date of such agreements is produced, though the consideration is supposed to be fixed looking at the valuation statement produced by the MSR,J & KL,J ::31:: wp_3420_2019&batch Land Procurement Officer as per Clause (v) of G.O.Ms.No.123 dt.30.07.2015.
85. Such record is critical to ascertain whether the petitioners agreed to part with their lands voluntarily and whether price was arrived at objectively keeping in view the market value / registration value of neighbouring lands, and as to what the petitioners were made to agree was more beneficial than what they would have got for the land under Act 30 of 2013 as required by proviso to Rule 15 mentioned above.
86. According to respondents, 148 out of 154 Project Displaced Families in Kochhaguttapalli village received benefits including land compensation, R & R benefits and house structure compensation; that all petitioners had agreed during several meetings for 2 BHK house constructed in R & R colony in Lingareddypalli Village of Siddipet Urban Mandal and 250 Sq.Yds. plots as per R & R entitlement under the Telangana State Amendment Act 21 of 2017 to the Act 30 of 2013. But not a single agreement allegedly signed by the petitioners is produced by the respondents.
87. In the Writ Petition affidavit, petitioners have alleged that they were threatened by the Revenue officials that if they did not agree to give up their lands, they would be acquired under Act 30 of 2013 and they would be paid only Rs.2.00 lakhs per acre and that under coercion they had signed blank agreements in English language, which they did not understand. They contended that no amount was paid for structures or trees in the lands which were being taken from them.
MSR,J & KL,J
::32:: wp_3420_2019&batch
88. The allegations made by the petitioners on the above aspects were not denied specifically in the counter-affidavit filed by the 6th respondent.
89. We may also mention that on 30.6.2016, another Division Bench of the Hyderabad High Court presided over by the then Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale and Justice P.Naveen Rao in WP.No.20740 of 2016 , had passed final orders stating:
"..under any circumstances, the respondents shall not compel the petitioners to enter into any agreement for acquisition of their lands for the said project ( Kaleswaram project) and they shall follow the procedure for acquiring their lands as contemplated under the provisions of the Act."
90. Admittedly, there is unequal bargaining power between the State actors such as the respondents and the petitioners, who are small farmers.
91. How the courts should deal with the unconscionable contracts between parties with unequal bargaining power has been eloquently answered by the Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly5 saying that:
"89. ... Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to all persons equality before the law and the equal protection of laws. ... This principle is that the courts will not enforce and will, when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power. ... For instance, the above principle will apply where the inequality of bargaining power is the result of the great disparity in the economic strength of the contracting parties. ... It will also apply where a man has no choice or rather no meaningful 5 (1986) 3 SCC 156 at para 89 p.216 MSR,J & KL,J ::33:: wp_3420_2019&batch choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules may be." (emphasis supplied)
92. This principle was followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sant Singh v. State of Haryana 6 where the said High Court set aside the agreements entered into by farmers with a private builder (who managed, without their knowledge, to get the proposal for acquisition of their land approved by the State, withdrawn, and got the lands released from such acquisition), so that he may buy the lands from them at a slightly better rate. It held:
"To say that the landowners entered into varied contracts with Respondent 11 voluntarily, willingly or without undue pressure is too farcical to be believed. There is a natural and conventional bondage between the land and its tiller. A farmer seldom sells the land save for the compelling reasons. Agriculture being their only source of survival, the loss of land is a terrible nightmare for any farmer. The Land Acquisition Collectors never assess the compensation as per actual market value of the land and the only yardstick to be followed is the Collector's rate fixed for the purpose of registration charges. The farmer cannot sell the land in open market as on issuance of Section 4 notification all sale transactions are invariably banned. These moments of fear and anxiety must have prompted Respondent 11 to indulge in the best bargain. For the farmers the offer was like "better you give the wool than the whole sheep". There was no free trade for the farmers. Their choice was limited: to accept the State compensation at the Collector's rate or a better offer given by State-sponsored private builder. There was inequality of bargaining power. The determination of land value was not at all in the control of farmers. They were groping in the dark. They had no clue that the land will be released.
6
(2013) SCC online P & H 26646
MSR,J & KL,J
::34:: wp_3420_2019&batch
They accepted the unreasonable and unfair unilateral terms and lost their land.
71. The sale price of the land was determined by Respondent 11 and not by the market forces. Given a choice between retaining their land or selling it to the builder for the offered price, not a single farmer would have agreed to sell it. The circumstances forced the landowners to accede to the offer made by the 11th respondent. It is a proven case of unconscionable bargain exerted through undue influence and fraud, both. The sample "agreements" on record truly reveal that illiterate/semi-literate farmers were asked to sign the documents on dotted lines forcing them to sell out most of their ancestral holdings. The en masse "agreements" conclusively belie the plea of need-based bona fide sales." (emphasis supplied) It held that the State cannot force the landowners to surrender their title in favour of and at a price to be dictated by a private beneficiary. The notified public purpose was only a ruse to enable the private State sponsored builder to purchase the land at the lowest possible price for maximising the profiteering.
93. This decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was approved by the Supreme Court in Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd. v. Sant Singh7. The Supreme Court declared:
"18. There could be no objection to acquisition of land for a compelling public purpose nor to regulated development of colonies, but entertaining an application for releasing of land in favour of the builder who comes into picture after acquisition notification and release of land to such builder tantamounts to acquisition for a private purpose. It amounts to transfer of resources of poor for the benefit of the rich. It amounts to permitting profiteering at the cost of livelihood and existence of a farmer. This is against the philosophy of the Constitution and in violation of guaranteed fundamental rights of equality and right to 7 (2016) 11 SCC 378 MSR,J & KL,J ::35:: wp_3420_2019&batch property and to life. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly also.
19. This apart, if the State is to be party to directly or indirectly select beneficiary of State largesse--which in present fact situation the State certainly is--objectivity and transparency are essential elements of exercise of public power which are required to be followed. It is patent that the State has enabled the builder to enter the field after initiation of acquisition to seek colonisation on the land covered by acquisition. In the absence of the State's action, it was not possible for the builder to enter into the transactions in question which was followed by withdrawal from acquisition. But for assurance from some quarters, the builder could not have made investment nor landowners could have executed the transactions in question.
Such fraudulent and clandestine exercise of power by the State is not permitted by law. This is in violation of public trust doctrine laid down inter alia in Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance Industries Ltd.8, Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India9, Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 201210 and Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India11"
(emphasis supplied)
94. Since objectivity and transparency are essential elements of exercise of public power which are required to be followed, and we find that in the instant cases there is absence of any evidence of (a) objective determination of the quantum of consideration and (b) transparency in the actions of respondents, and there is no material to show that what was offered to petitioners was more than what they would have got under Act 30 of 2013, we find that the exercise of public power by the respondents is in violation of the public trust doctrine and unconscionable. 8 (2010) 7 SCC 1 9 (2012) 3 SCC 1 10 (2012) 10 SCC 1 11 (2014) 9 SCC 516 MSR,J & KL,J ::36:: wp_3420_2019&batch
95. The respondents in their counter affidavit merely state that petitioners cooperated and village elders and elected representatives convinced them to give up their lands and houses. We are not inclined to believe this plea of the respondents.
96. In our opinion, in the instant cases too, the petitioners were given no choice or rather no meaningful choice, in view of their unequal bargaining power with the respondents, but to give their assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form though it was unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable.
97. We hold that the respondents have violated the order dt.30.6.2016 in WP.No.20740 of 2016 and forced the petitioners to give up their lands by signing agreements/sale deeds under coercion and threat and so the said sale deeds executed by petitioners selling their agricultural lands to the State are declared null and void, as they are unconscionable and we hold that they are unenforceable in view of Sec. 19 and 23 of the Contract Act, 1872. We also hold that the action of the respondents is violative of Art.14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
98. We also hold that there has been arbitrary fixation of price of the lands of the petitioners by the respondents.
99. Consequently, we hold that petitioners in W.P.No.3420 and 9146 of 2019 are entitled to compensation for their agricultural lands as per Act 30 of 2013 which shall be determined and paid to them by the respondents within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order after giving notice to them and hearing them on the quantum of MSR,J & KL,J ::37:: wp_3420_2019&batch compensation. The date for determination of compensation shall be taken as 15.1.2019, the date when, according to the respondents, petitioners were dispossessed by the respondents.
100. We direct that amounts already paid to petitioners shall not be recovered by the respondents and shall be adjusted by the State towards the compensation found payable to the petitioners after such compensation for agricultural land is determined strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Act 30 of 2013. Re: Houses of Petitioners:
101. We had already noted that on 06.12.2019, the Green Bench of this Court passed a Common Order in WP.No.s 7549, 10393, 11714, 9146, 3420, 26421 and 13252 of 2019 stating that water be not released into the Ananthagirisagar Reservoir till the following week when the Bench proposed to hear it.
102. This interim order was subsequently extended on 20.12.2019 for three weeks, on 03.01.2020 up to 24.01.2020, on 29.01.2020 till 05.02.2020, on 05.02.2020 for two weeks, and on 19.02.2020 for two weeks in WP.No.3420 of 2019.
103. This interim order was subsequently extended on 20.12.2019 for three weeks, on 03.01.2020 up to 24.01.2020, on 29.01.2020 till 05.02.2020, on 05.02.2020 for two weeks, on 19.02.2020 for two weeks, on 26.02.2020 for two weeks, and on 11.03.2020 for four weeks in WP.No.9146 of 2019.
MSR,J & KL,J
::38:: wp_3420_2019&batch
104. Thereafter, as per orders dt.27.03.2020 in WP (Urgent) 1 of 2020 of a Full Bench of this Court presided over by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, in the circumstances prevalent because of the Corona Virus Pandemic, all interim orders were extended up to 07.06.2020.
105. However notwithstanding the said interim orders dt.6.12.2019, water was admittedly released into the Anantgirisagar reservoir on 18.4.2020 (according to counter filed by the respondents in WP.No.3420 and 9146 of 2019).
106. According to the petitioners, on the midnight of 19.4.2020, they were all forcibly evicted from their houses by the respondents with the help of about 500 police men, the petitioners were not even allowed to take their belongings from their houses, and their houses were demolished.
107. The very act of release of water into the Anantagiri sagar reservoir by the respondents on 18.4.2020, is a willful disobedience of the order dt.6.12.2019 granted in W.P.No.9146 of 2019, which continued to subsist in the said W.P and in WP.No.3420 of 2019 by virtue of later extensions, and is an act amounting to Contempt of Court rendering the respondents punishable under Art.215 of the Constitution of India and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
108. The respondents cannot place any reliance on the order dt.1.5.2020 in in W.P.No.35059 of 2017, 7549, 10393 and 11714 of 2019 because the petitioners herein were not parties therein and the said order passed on MSR,J & KL,J ::39:: wp_3420_2019&batch 1.5.2020 could not be pleaded as a justification for release of water into the Anatagirisagar reservoir on 19.4.2020 more than 10 days prior thereto.
109. We are of the opinion that the respondents had no respect or the interim orders passed by this Court in the instant cases which were subsisting as on 19.4.2020.
110. Though a notification dt.20.12.2017 had been issued under Sec.11 of the Act 30 of 2013 by publication in Eenadu newspaper on 28.12.2017, no declaration under Sec.19 of the Act had been issued within the period of 12 months from the date of Sec.11(1) notification, as provided under Sec. 19(7) of the Act.
111. The extension order dt.28.2.2019 uploaded on the web site of the District Collector cannot be taken as a valid exercise of the power to extend the time under second proviso to Sec.19(7) of the Act because such extension can only be done within the 12 months period from 28.12.2017 i.e before 27.12.2018 and thereafter.
112. Even the respondents accept that the Sec.11 (1) notification issued to acquire the houses of the petitioners has lapsed in para 4 of the counter affidavit by saying "It is submitted that in W.P.No.3420 and 9146 of 2019, the Hon'ble High court has set aside the Sec.11 (1) notification."
113. No attempt has been made in the counter affidavit to justify the dispossession of the petitioners from their houses, without there being a valid acquisition process, to acquire them.
MSR,J & KL,J
::40:: wp_3420_2019&batch
114. The plea of the petitioners in the reply affidavit filed by them about the presence of a large police force on 18.4.2020 and 19.4.2020 has not been denied by the respondents by filing any additional counter affidavit thereto.
115. The plea of the respondents that petitioners voluntarily cooperated and vacated their houses is vehemently denied by the respondents in the rejoinder filed by them as well in the memo filed on 20.5.2020 by them.
116. We find it highly improbable that petitioners, having come to this Court and having secured interim orders on 29.4.2019 in IA No.1 of 2019 in WP.No.9146 2019 and later from the Green Bench on 6.12.2019, would meekly and without protest, vacate their houses, that too in the middle of the night on 19.4.2020.
117. We accept the plea of the petitioners that they were dispossessed from their houses, structures and trees on 19.4.2020 by coercion by use of police force in blatant violation of interim orders on 29.4.2019 in IA No.1 of 2019 in WP.No.9146 2019 and later from the Green Bench on 6.12.2019 and the action of the respondents is clearly violative of Art.14, 300-A and Sec.38 of the Act 30 of 2013.
118. At pg.71 of the papers filed by the petitioners along with the reply affidavit, they have filed the Cheque dishonour Memo dt.28.4.2020 issued by the State Bank of India of the chq.no.103183 dt.25.4.2020 issued for Rs.7,50,000/- to Gaddam Rajavva, petitioner no.1 in WP.No.9146 of 2019, stating that "payment stopped by Drawer". According to petitioners cheques issued to several other petitioners also MSR,J & KL,J ::41:: wp_3420_2019&batch were dishonoured. There is no denial of this allegation by the respondents. So we believe the said allegation.
119. We are appalled by this conduct of the respondents.
120. We therefore direct the respondents to determine and pay compensation to the petitioners as on 19.4.2020 for the deprivation of houses of the petitioners in W.P.No.3420 and 9146 of 2019 within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order after giving notice to them and hearing them on the quantum of compensation.
121. The District Collector, Siddipet District shall ensure that the cheques already issued by him to the petitioners are forthwith honoured by the respective bankers for the State of Telangana and the petitioners receive the said amounts.
122. These amounts, after the respective petitioners receive them, shall be adjusted, towards the compensation for houses, structures and trees which shall be determined afresh under the Act 30 of 2013 and which is to be paid to the petitioners pursuant to the orders in the instant Writ Petitions within three (03) months from to-day. Re: Resettlement and Rehabilitation
123. The Act 30 of 2013 provides for Resettlement and Rehabilitation in Chapter V to families affected by deprivation of property by the State as per Second Schedule.
MSR,J & KL,J
::42:: wp_3420_2019&batch
124. Sec.31-A, as introduced by Act 21 of 2017 (the Telangana state Amendment) has been given retrospective effect w.e.f.1.1.2014 by Sec.1(2) of Act 21 of 2017.
125. Sec.31 A states:
"31A. Payment of Lump sum amount by State Government : -
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, whenever the land is to be acquired for any projects as notified in Section 10A, it shall be competent for the State Government to pay such lump sum amount as may be prescribed in the rules in lieu of Rehabilitation and Resettlement :
Provided that the payment of such lump-sum amount in lieu of Rehabilitation and Resettlement as may be prescribed, shall not be abnormally at variance to the disadvantage of the affected families."
[Vide Telangana Amendment Act 21 of 2017, w.r.e.f. 1.1.2014]
126. Under this provision, the petitioners in both Writ Petitions 3420 and 9146 of 2019, are entitled to R & R benefits not only for loss of agricultural lands in July,2016 but also for loss of their house properties in April,2020 separately i.e twice, in the event they lost both. But if they have lost only one of them i.e agricultural lands or houses, they would get such benefits only once.
127. This would be in addition to the compensation for the agricultural lands/ houses or both as per Act 30 of 2013.
128. The respondents shall determine and pay the said benefits towards R & R as per Sec 31/31A of the Act to the petitioners in WP.No. 3420 and 9146 of 2019 within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
MSR,J & KL,J
::43:: wp_3420_2019&batch
WP.No.25664 of 2019:
129. The petitioners in this Writ Petitioners are adult unmarried members of project affected families. They seek R & R benefits on par with adult married members of project affected families.
130. Sec.2 (m) of Act 30 of 2013 states :
"2(m) 'family' includes a person, his or her spouse, minor children, minor brothers and minor sisters dependent on him :
Provided that widows, divorcees and women deserted by families shall be considered separate families :
Explanation : An adult of either gender with or without spouse or children or dependents shall be considered as a separately family for the purposes of this Act;"(emphasis supplied)
131. Thus as per the Explanation to Sec.2(m), even if an adult member of a family is unmarried, he is to be treated fictionally as a "separate family" for the purposes of the Act 30 of 2013.
132. Section 31(1) of Act 30 of 2013 states that the Collector shall pass Rehabilitation and Resettlement Awards for each affected "family" in terms of entitlements provided in the Second Schedule.
133. Sub-Section (2) of Section 31 states that such Award shall include the following :
"31. (1) ... ...
(2)... ...
(a) rehabilitation and resettlement amount payable to the family;
MSR,J & KL,J ::44:: wp_3420_2019&batch
(b) bank account number of the person to which the rehabilitation and resettlement award amount is to be transferred;
(c) particulars of house site and house to be allotted, in case of displaced families;
(d) particulars of land allotted to the displaced families;
(e) particulars of one time subsistence allowance and transportation allowance in case of displaced families;
(f) particulars of payment for cattle shed and petty shops;
(g) particulars of one-time amount to artisans and small traders;
(h) details of mandatory employment to be provided to the members of the affected families;
(i) particulars of any fishing rights that may be involved;
(j) particulars of annuity and other entitlements to be provided;
(k) particulars of special provisions for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes to be provided :
... ... ..."(emphasis supplied)
134. Thus under Sec.31, each "family" which is project affected is entitled to R & R amounts as specified under the Act.
135. We have already referred to Sec.31A introduced by the Telangana State Amendment Act 21 of 2017 w.e.f 1.1.2014.
136. Counsel for the petitioners contends that having regard to the explanation to Sec.2 (m), petitioners shall also be treated as a separate family, though unmarried, for the purposes of the Act.
MSR,J & KL,J
::45:: wp_3420_2019&batch
137. According to petitioners, they had been given only Rs.5.00 lakhs and a plot of 250 sq.yds, while married members of project affected families have been given Rs.7.50 lakhs and a double bed room house on a 250 sq.yds plot and that they have been discriminated against.
138. According to them, the respondents had declared a package of Rs.5 lakhs and a plot of 250 sq. yards to be given as R & R package to adult unmarried members, like the petitioners, but not the fulfledged R & R package to be given to a family under the Act.
139. Counsel for the petitioners referred to G.O.Rt.No.282 Irrigation & CAD(LA.R&R/A2) Department dt.11.07.2019, which directs that the Government would pay Rs.7,50,000/- per family and Rs.5,00,000/- only to unmarried youth, who have crossed 18 years of age, along with either the allotment of open plot or 250 sq. yards or construction of 2BHK house or payment of Rs.5.04 lakh amount in lieu of 2BHK house in respect of Kochaguttapally habitation and contended that discrimination is being shown to petitioners, who are unmarried adult members of project affected families.
140. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in this W.P, denying the discrimination alleged by the petitioners.
141. We are of the opinion that as a matter of law, in view of Explanation to Sec.2 (m) of the Act 30 of 2013, married and unmarried members of families of project affected families have to be treated on par and as a "separate family", and there cannot be any discrimination shown to any adult unmarried member of such family on the ground that he/she MSR,J & KL,J ::46:: wp_3420_2019&batch is not married in the matter of payment of R & R entitlements under Sec.31/31A of the Act. So whatever benefits are promised to adult married members, same benefits should be given to unmarried adult members too.
142. We accordingly declare that petitioners in WP.No.25664 of 2019, who are unmarried adult members of project affected families, are entitled to same R & R benefits as were paid by the respondents to adult married members of project affected families as per Sec.31/31 A of the Act 30 of 2013; and the said R & R benefits, identical with those granted given to adult married members of project affected families, shall be given to the petitioners within 3 months. The amounts already paid to them shall be taken into account while giving the monetary component of the same as per Sec.31 A of the Act 30 of 2013 and rules/Government Orders made thereunder.
CONCLUSION:
143. Accordingly,
(a) the W.Ps 3420 of 2019, W.P. 9146 of 2019 and W.P.No.25664 of 2019 are allowed;
(b) It is declared that the respondents have violated the order dt.30.6.2016 in WP.No.20740 of 2016 and forced the petitioners in W.Ps 3420 of 2019 and W.P. 9146 of 2019 to give up their agriculture lands by signing agreements/sale deeds in July,2016 under coercion and threat; the said sale MSR,J & KL,J ::47:: wp_3420_2019&batch deeds executed by petitioners selling their agricultural lands to the State are declared null and void, as they are unconscionable and are declared as unenforceable in view of Sec. 19 and 23 of the Contract Act, 1872. It is also declared that the said action of the respondents is violative of Art.14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and provisions of Act 30 of 2013 and Act 21 of 2017.
(c) It is declared that there has been arbitrary fixation of price of the agricultural lands of the petitioners in W.Ps 3420 of 2019 and W.P. 9146 of 2019 by the respondents.
(d) Consequently, we direct the respondents to pay petitioners in W.P.No.3420 and 9146 of 2019 compensation for deprivation by the State of their agricultural lands as per Act 30 of 2013 which shall be determined and paid to them by the respondents within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order after giving notice to them and hearing them on the quantum of compensation. The date for determination of compensation shall be taken as 15.1.2019, the date when, according to the respondents, petitioners were dispossessed by the respondents.
(e) We direct that amounts already paid to petitioners in W.P.No.3420 and 9146 of 2019 shall not be recovered by the respondents and shall be adjusted by the State towards the compensation found payable to them after such MSR,J & KL,J ::48:: wp_3420_2019&batch compensation for petitioners' agricultural lands is determined in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Act 30 of 2013 as mentioned in clause (d) above.
(f) Further we direct the respondents to determine and pay compensation to the petitioners in W.P.No.3420 and 9146 of 2019 as on 19.4.2020 as per Act 30 of 2013 for the deprivation of their houses, structures and trees within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order after giving notice to them and hearing them on the quantum of compensation.
(g) The District Collector, Siddipet District shall ensure that the cheques already issued by him to the petitioners in W.P.No.3420 and 9146 of 2019 as compensation for the deprivation of their houses are forthwith honoured by the respective Bankers for the State of Telangana and ensure that the petitioners receive the said amounts.
(h) These amounts, after the respective petitioners in W.P.No.3420 and 9146 of 2019 receive them, shall be adjusted, towards the compensation for houses, structures and trees which shall be determined afresh as directed under clause (f) above.
(i) We declare that the petitioners in both W.P.No.s 3420 and 9146 of 2019, are entitled to R & R benefits not only for loss of agricultural lands in July,2016 but also for loss of their MSR,J & KL,J ::49:: wp_3420_2019&batch house properties in April,2020 separately i.e twice, in the event they lost both agricultural lands and houses. But if they have lost only one of them i.e agricultural lands or houses, they would get such benefits only once. This would be in addition to the compensation for the agricultural lands/ houses or both payable to these petitioners as per Act 30 of 2013; and we direct the respondents to determine and pay the said benefits towards R & R as per Sec 31/31A of the Act to the petitioners in WP.No. 3420 and 9146 of 2019 within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(j) As regards the petitioners in WP.No.25664 of 2019, it is declared that married and unmarried members of project affected families have to be treated on par, and as a "separate family"; and there cannot be any discrimination shown to any adult unmarried member of such family like the petitioners in WP.No.25664 of 2019 on the ground that he/she is not married, in the matter of payment of R &R benefits under Sec.31/31-A of the Act.
(k) We direct the respondents to pay/grant the petitioners in WP.No.25664 of 2019 R &R benefits under Sec.31/31 A of the Act whatever R & R benefits were given to married members of project affected families within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The amounts MSR,J & KL,J ::50:: wp_3420_2019&batch already paid to them shall be taken into account while giving the monetary component of the same as per Sec.31 A of the Act 30 of 2013 and rules/Government Orders made thereunder.
144. Having regard to the finding given by us regarding willful disobedience by respondents of the interim orders dt.29.4.2019 in IA.No.1 of 2019 in WP.No.9146 of 2019 and the orders dt.26.12.2019 of the Green Bench of this High Court in WP.No.3420 of 2019 and WP.No.9146 of 2019, which are still subsisting, by forceful dispossession of the petitioners from their houses in the said W.Ps without paying lawful compensation under Act 30 of 2013 and R & R benefits in violation of Sec.38 of Act 30 of 2013, we further direct as under:
(a) The State of Telangana rep. by it's Chief Secretary or other competent authority shall record an adverse entry in the Annual Confidential reports of (i) Sri P.Venkatrama Reddy, IAS, the District Collector, Siddipet, (ii) K.Anantha Reddy, s/o K.Anji Reddy, Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet who was also Special Deputy Collector (LA), Unit-I, Kaleswaram Project, (iii) Sri Srinivas rao, MRO, Chinnakodur, Sri Parameswar, MRO who also worked at Chinnakodur, and (iv) Mr.Joel Davis, Commissioner of Police, Siddipet, who had taken an active part to forcibly evict the petitioners from their houses on 19.4.2020.
MSR,J & KL,J ::51:: wp_3420_2019&batch
(b) The National Commission for Scheduled Castes , New Delhi shall also enquire into the actions of these persons and any others since it is contended that the actions of these persons have resulted in the violation of provisions of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 in respect of petitioners Thaduri Narsaiah, Thaduri Laxmi, Kommagalla Narsavva, Kommagalla Lakshmi, Thaduri Lachavva, Lakke Narsaiah, Elkathurthi Lakshman, Elkathurthi Narsavva, Thaduri Nagaraju, Thaduri Mallavva and Thaduri Eshwar, (petitioner No.s 5, 11 to 14, 25, 26 and 29 in WP.No.3420 of 2019 and petitioners No.9 to 11 in WP.No.9146 of 2019) who belong to the Scheduled Caste community and that their eviction in the above manner would attract the provisions of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; and it shall within 4 months recommend appropriate action to the competent authority against Sri P.Venkatrama Reddy, IAS, the District Collector, Siddipet, (ii) K.Anantha Reddy, s/o K.Anji Reddy, Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet who was also Special Deputy Collector (LA), Unit-I, Kaleswaram Project, (iii) Sri Srinivas rao, MRO, Chinnakodur, Sri Parameswar, MRO who also worked at Chinnakodur, and
(iv) Mr.Joel Davis, Commissioner of Police, Siddipet, if it comes to a conclusion that there is a violation of provisions of the said Act by these persons or any other persons.
MSR,J & KL,J
::52:: wp_3420_2019&batch
(c) The State of Telangana represented by it's Principal Secretary, Irrigation and CAD Department shall also pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to each petitioner in all these three Writ Petitions.
____________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J _________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 10.07.2020 Note : (i) LR Copy to be marked : YES
(ii) Copy of this order to be uploaded on the High Court Website today;
(iii) Copy of this order to be issued by 15.07.2020 to the parties.
B/o.
Ndr/Gra ANNEXURES
1. Annexure - I : Order dt.27.03.2020 in Writ Petition No.Urgent 1/2020 passed by Full Bench of the Telangana High Court.
2. Annexure - II : Memo dt.14.05.2020 filed by the Advocate-General in these three Writ Petitions and others, i.e., W.P.No.37769 of 2017 and batch.
3. Annexure - III : Reply Memo dt.15.04.2020 of petitioners' counsel.
4. Annexure - IV : Order dt.01.05.2020 in W.P.No.35059 of 2017, 7549, 10393 and 11714 of 2019.
5. Annexure-V : Notification R.O.C.No.394/SO/2020 DT.13.04.2020 of the High Court of Telangana.
5. Annexure - VI : Cause-list dt.15.06.2020 of Special Bench of MSR,J and KL,J and also the regular Bench of MSR,J and TA,J.
6. Annexure - VII : Notification R.O.C.No.1202/SO/2019 dt.29.04.2020 of the High Court of Telangana.
CC of this order to be communicated to:
1) The Chief Secretary, State of Telangana, 5th Floor, Burgula Rama Krishna Rao Bhavan, NH 44, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500063.
2) Secretary, National Commission For Scheduled Castes, 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi-110003.
r\rvMi x.lA? - Ar
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION NO: URGENT I12020
(To Be Numbered Subsequentlv)
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION
iN RE
Extension of Interim Orders and Abeyance of Execution Orders CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKERREDDY ORDER Considering the grave possibility of spreading of COVID- 19, the Government of India has issued order No. 40-312020-DM-1(A) on 24.03.2020 whereunder strong a measures have been enforced to prevent the spread of COVID- 19. A nationwide lockdown has been declared for a period of21 days with effect from 25.03.2020 In view of the lockdown in the State of Telangana and the extremely limited functioning of courts, routine matters have been adjoumed en bloc to particular dates in the month of April. Thus advocates and litigants have not been in a position to appear in the said matters, including those where stays have been granted by this Court or by the Courts subordinate to this Court, on or before 20.03.2020. As a result, interim orders operating in favour of parties have expired, or will expire on or after 20.03.2020.
Taking suo motc) cognizance of the aforesaid extraordinary circumstances, under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, it is hereby ordered that in all matters pending before this court, and courts subordinate to this court, wherein such interim orders issued were subsisting as on 20.03.2020 and expired, or will expire thereafter. the same shall stand automatically extended till 7.6.2020 or until further 2 Supreme Court of India in any particular matter, during the intervening period.
Needless to clariry that in case, the aforesaid extension of interim order causes any hardship of an extreme nature to a party to such proceeding, they would be at liberty to seek appropriate relief, as may be advised.
It has also corne to the notice of this Court that after 15.2.2020, the Executing Courts have passed directions to the Bailiffs for executing the decrees and dispossessing the judgment debtors. The Bailiffs are continuing to implement the said orders. However, the judgment debtors, presently, do not have any means of challenging the said orders. Therefore, their access to justice is being denied. Hence, it is directed that anv such order passed by the Executing Court shall be kept in abeyance, and shall not be executed till funher orders.
This order be uploaded on the website of this Court and be conveyed to the leamed Advocate Ceneral, Additional Advocate General, Additional Solicitor General of India, Assistant Solicitor General 6f India, Public Prosecutor of the High Court, all the Govemment Pleaders and Standing Counsel, High Court Advocates' Association, all the other Bar Associations of the District in the State of Telangana, as well as to all District Courts subordinate to this court. Date:27-3-2020.
sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE sd/-
M.S. RANIACHANDRA RAO, J sd/-
A. RAJ,A.SHEKER REDDY, J
/lTrtue Copyll
e rar General
4 wa,
A^, Ve r ,-'Ae --}
\
lN Tlllt lllcll COTJRT l'Oll TIIII STATE OI'TELANGATT-A AT
IIYDEITABAD
\\'.1'.Nos. .17769/20 1 7, 6
4 n0 19, 217 4(t l 2019, 2657 5 201 9,
1 1
sJl5/2020, 2ltilt/2020, 2389/2020, 3J20120t9, t)t1612lJ19, 7566112019 ruud 6556/2020 Betsccn:
l!1. Narsiah Narsimha l{cddy and othcrc
I'clitioncrs
,\nrl
Statc ofTelanBaDa,
Rep:bl its Prl.
Sccrclary.
Re|cnuc (1../\) l)cpanmcnt.
Sccrctariat. I l)'d$abad and othcrs ..Rcsyxrndents
u[]to ]' .tit) lr\' r'rrr.r \r)\'()aA 't E-(;
.I'EI,AN(;A.\*A
\ t,tr.\1. Fot{ ft lli STATI
oF
t. This mcmo is filed statiDg tlrc difficultics in procccding rvith thc final
hearing of thc abolc mcntioned Wril. Pctitions by thc Adlocatc-General at {his junclure for thc kind consideration of lhis Hon'ble Coun and a rcqucst for adjouming thc abot'c rvrit petitions lbr linal hcaring. ll is rcspectfully submittcd thal thc above Writ Petitions rticrc listed carlicr beforc the Division llcnch consisting of I lon'ble the Chief Juslicc and thc Hon'blc Mr, Justice A. r\bhishck Rcddl'for the limitct purposc of considering thc modificatio[ of the earlier interim order, rvhich dirccls nol to rclcasc thc watcr ihto lhc subject lands rvhich rverc acquircd for the purposc Kalcs*aram Lifi lrrigationProjcct. Accordingly. the Writ Pctitions $crc takcn up and aftcr hchring both the Counsel for the partics, in vie\* ofthc urgency ofrclcasing the N"ter into thc Prcjcct, the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleascd to modify the said interim ordcr and dirccted thc Statc to rclease rvatcr, subjcct to paynlent of land : ll*--€ 1 Scanned with CamScanner compcnsation. ltchabilitttion & Rcscttlcmcnl bcncfils and pro"'iding lhe Statc polic] 'fhc said cloublc hcdroont hottscs/ltortsc plots, as Pcr rrrdcr rYas passctl allcrhclring both sirlqs itnd uPon agrecing to rcccivc thc lrqncfits h)'thc pctitioncrs undcr thc Slatc I'olicy' It is sutnnittcd tlnt dircctions issrrcd by thc llon'blc Division llcnch rcrc contplicd l itlt and thc lnnd compcnsation incltrtling [l & R bcncfits *'erc pairl to all thc Pctitioncrs. its pcr thcir cntitlcolcnt. l'hc Writ Pctition Nos. 5115/2020. ?18911020. 3120i201(). g1l6/2019. 15(rtrj,'20l() and lS(r89/1019 \\crc listcd r^Llirrc tlris on'hlc (irtrn onll lo cnsurc llrat thc Pctilioncrs arc pnid thcir ducr Ilorrcrcr. lhc lcarncd ('rrtur.tl lirr lhc I'ctitioncrs stilrted arguins lhe mattcr o:i mcrils of tht:
cils(. n(r\\ lr:tlinr lcccptcd thr conrfcns{lion anrl othcr hcnclits undcr thc Stirtc folie\.
{ Ihcrclorc. lhc tirsl { \\'rit l'ctitions c.rnnr)t bc scparaled lionr thc birch of other \\'rit I'ctitions mijntioncd supra and dispuscd r:l linalll during this prndernic lime. ln lircr. a Dirision l]crch ol'this llon'hlc C'oun havirrg hcard tlrc mattcrs tlength hrs passcd intcrim rrrdcrs rrhich runs into 7? pages in \Y.l'.No.250i6/2016 and hirtch and Jrostcr.l thc mattcr for final hcaring and thc said tratch of Writ l'ctitions. as strtcd suprr. arc pcnding for hcaring and thc \\rit pclition cnd hatch is quilc relcvrult kl the le$ cuses.
) It is subnritlcd that thc l)clitioncrs in thc first ftrur Writ Pctitions mcntioncd supra, which arc lislcd today i.c.. 1,1.5.1020 rrc maliing u prayer that the lands tshich rvcrc sold by thcm undcr thc (:onscnt Agrccmcnts pursuanl to C.O.N'ts.No.l23. d lcd 30.7,201r bc sct asidc. (-'n ahc allegation thai lhc lands wcrc procurcd undcr thrcat and cocrcion in thc 2 s:_=s Scanned with CamScanner ycar 2016 and thc Sutc be dircclcd to initiate procccdings undcr Act 30/2013 including thc paymcnt ofR & R bcnclits. ll is vcry curious to notc thal cven according to lhc Pctitioneru, thc lands werc procurcd by thc Statc in thc ycar 2016 and thcy say. at this lcnglh of time, that thc sales wcrc madc undcr thrcal and cocrcion.
6 'llris lJon'blc Court, xlso postcd W P.Nos.54l 512020 and 238912020 to t8.5.2020 for final hcaring anrl W.l'.No.21882020to 20.5.20?0 as parl' hcard for final disposal and \\'.l'.Nos. 342012019' 91462.019 znd 2566412019 for final hcaring and W.P.No.6556/2020to 18.5 2020 for final hcaring during this pandemic lockdosn pcriod
7. k is submiltcd that in fact this llon'blc Courl havc issued Si(ting Arralgcmcnts fronr Tucsda1 i.c.. 12.5.2020 onwards' wherein sittings havc becn rcduccd to onc Division Bcnch and thrce singlc Benches, in Yierv of the prcvailing lhrcal oi sprcad of Corona Virus in tlyderabad.
Furlher. this Hon'ble Court h:ls also issucd a Notification on I1.5,2020 stating that 'only cxtrcmc urBent mallers as dccided bythe llon'blc the Chief Justice' rvill bc takcn for hearing. instcad of all cases.
.up Thercfore, all Ihe writ Petilions mcntioncd abovc, rvhich arc postcd lbr hcaring from today onwards lo 20.5.2020 as indicatcd abovc are not c:xfcmcly urgcnl much icss urgcnt mattcrs at all, as they arc pending on thc filc ofthis I lon'blc Cout for quite somc timc. Funhcr. a reading ofrhe praycrs in the said Writ Petitions $,ould certainly malie it clcar that thcre is no urgency at all.
It Il is rcspcctfully submitrcd that thc State Govcmmcnt of Tclangana has imposed a lock down rill 296 May 2020 or accounl ofthe COVID 19 Pandemic situation . llorycvcr , the officc of the Advocate General has been functioning and representirg thc cases takcn up by the Hon'ble ' {-'' Scanned with CamScanner Counthroughvidcoconfcrcncinghytakingprccarrtionaqr'mcastlrcsof 'l'hc Covcmmcnt Plcadcrs flttached lo ph-vsical distancc , sanitizrlion clc thcAdloc0tcCcrcral.sofliccarcpultinginlhcirbcstcffortstoco. ortlinalc rrith thc <jiffcrcnt dcpartmcnts and thc liaison olficcrs attachcd filing t(\ such dcpartrlcnts in thc manncr of sccuring instructions and countc[i/ rcpons in thc cascs thal ilrc listcd bcforc lhis Hon hlc Conn ' 9 In this background . thc insistcnce of thc Counscl for lhc l)elitioncni in thc said mattcrs 10 talic up thc mattcls for final hcaring, rvhcn lhcre is no appa.cnt urgcnc\'. is highly unrcrsonablc. It is very dililcult lbr thc Advoclltc Gcncral to prcscol his argumcnls through Vidco Confcrencing modc. lor final hcariug giren thc frcquent disruption ofaudio. logging in prohlcnrs. in spite oI rrraintaining thc best tcchnolog] al thc O{Ilcc ol'thc Adrocatc Ccncral. Thc Covcrnnrqrt Plcadcrs assisling lhc /\dvocate (icnsral lrc handicappcd in lhe maltcr ol'assisling lhe Adrocate General sincc thc) arc supposed to maintain appropriatc ph)'sical distance. Sincc the hcaring of thc mattcrs *ould take considerable timc, the norms regarding physicai dislancc mal bc contpromiscd, rvhich ma1' rrsult in thc risk ofbcing cxposcd to Corona Virus unrvittinglr'. t0 It is linhcr submittcd that sincc thcrc arc numbcr of issues rclating to facts qhich nccd to hc asccrtained from lhc conccmed officcrs and in vierv of thc concemcd officcrs lully occupied with rheir field opcrrtions pertaining lo relicf measurcs ctc., in this pcriod of lockdoln. thc facts rvhich are crucial to the intcrcsts ofthc Rcspondcnts havc to bc projected properll rvhich consumc rcasonablc time. Thc subject mattcr of thcsc cases is of panmount imponance to thc Rcspondcnts in rclation to thc irrigalion pmjects, as such the mattcrs deservc a marath(,n audicncc on 4 Ii--o-
Scanned with Camscanner disputed questions of fact. Thc handicaps faccd by thc Office of thc Advocatc Ccncral in procceding with thc hearing of the matrer during this Pandemic situation may kindly bc takcn into consideration. It is also perlincnt to mention that lhe purymrl of hcaring cases during the lockdo*n cvcn a; flcr thc ioformation available on the website of this llonble Coun is rcsrrictcd to hcaring of ,,erlrcmcl'. urgert csses", the cases on hand arc not cascs uhich arc frcshly filed and havc been filsd prior to thc imposilion ofthc lockdown.
n. It is funhcr respcctfully submittcd during lhc course ofarguments, if the Rcspondents/ Pctilioncrs intcnd to submit anl,documenls, thc same are lo bc prexntcd io clectronic modc. it is the cxpcricncc of thc Officc of the Advocate Gcneral thrt documcnls rvhich arc of voluminous nature are diflicult to bc transmitlcd elcctronicall;, and occupy large memory lhcrcb-.- stalling thc compulsr slstcms. Onu,ard lransmission from the field lcvcl from the officsrs conccmcd and such fonvnrd transmissioo to the Coun and thc Counscl for thc Pctitioners is a humungous task involving various logistic issues. lt would lake a rcasonable time to cope up tYith thc situation.
In vierv ofthc abovc, it is praycd lhd this Hon'ble Court may be pleascd to adjoum the abovc mattcrs lill the Iloo'ble Coun is re.opencd for regular functiouiog after pandemic and lockdown situation, as it would be diflicult to advance arguments for final hcaring in the Writ Petitions at this point of time.
q,€ HYDERABAD, DATED: 14.5.2020. ADVOCATE-GENI]RAL 5 I Scanned with Camscanner I I NIIiDAK (SIDI)IPET) DiS'I'RICl' ltlctl COUR'l': I IYDtlltAll^I) W.l'.Nos. 37769/201 7. I 6144/2019' 2l?40/201e. 265'75t2019. 5415/2020.
2I8lt/:02(), 218.'/10?0. i{10/20I9, 9l4(r/l0l9. 25664/201 9 and 655612020 MIIN1O I:ll.EI) llY l llll i\D\'( )C,\'l'li-
GIiNI-tR.,\l_ r()ri. 1l rE s] A't'L ol, 't,lI.AN!1,\NA Al)vOCA IEGtiNLI{r\I. ( I5564) COUNSII, I;OR 1'IIE RTJSPoNDENTS 0 Scanned wit h CamScanner f,^r^/ex "Le' .9 IN THE HIGH COTIRT FOR THE STATE OF TEI,ANGANA A]T IIYDERABAI) trI.P.No.s 37 7 69 / 20 L7, L6,344 / 20 19, 2 LZ 40 I 20 L9, 26,57 5 / 20 t9, 54 t5 / 2O2O, 2 tAA / 2O2O, 23a9 / 2O2O, 3,420 / 20 L9, I L 46 / 20 t9, 266,6,4/2019 and 6556 of.2O2O REPLY TO THE COMMON MEMO FILED BY ADVOCATE GENRAL FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA Ol. It is respectfully submitted that a Common Memo dt.l4.O5.2O2O was filed by the learned Advocate General for the 1l cases cited above. However, I am State of Telangana for a list of the counsel for the petitioners in only 6 cases mentioned above, i.e items 5 to 1O vtz., W.P.5415 of 2O2O, 2la8 of 2O2O, 23a9 of 2O2O, W.P.342O of 2019. W.P.9146 of 2Ol9 and W.P.25664 of 2019. Therefore, on the instructions of my clients, I am here with filing reply to the said memo, pertaining only to the above said six cases.
02. In reply to para 2 of the memo, it is submitted that it is not correct that the above said 6 writ petitions were listed before the Division bench consisting of Hon'ble The Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. Abishek Reddy for the limited purpose of considering the modification of earlier interim order. In fact, there are no interim orders in cases W.P.2188 of 2O2O, W.P2389 of 2O2O and W.P5l45 of 2O2O. The said cases were listed on O9.O4.2O2O before the Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble The Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Justice T. Amarnath Goud, on a specific request by the counsel for the petitioners citing the dire urgency, I.e threat of dispossession. A note to that effect was submitted to the registry on O7.O4.2O2O and uPon the orders of Hon'ble Chief Justice, after satisfying that there is dire urElency in the sdd matters, the said matters were listed. During that time, only dire urgent matters were being listed as per the roaster. Upon hearing the said matters onO9.O4.2O2O, the Hon'ble Division Bench directed the Ld. Advocate General to file reply by
12.O4.2O2O and the matters adjourned to 13.O4.2O2O. Counters /Additional counters running into hundreds of pages were flled by the office of Advocate General. From thereon the matters were taken up regularly and orders are being passed from time to time even in the strict first and second phases of Lock dou'n period, given the dire urgency in the matters. The office of Advocate General never objected to taking up of those matters till
13.O5.2O2O. The said matters were listed on O9.O4.2O2O. 13.04.2020, 20.04.2020, 23.04.2020, 27 .04.2020, O 1.O5. 2020, O7.O5.2O2O and later posted to 13.O5.2O2O and orders were passed accordingly. Respondent authorities needed to report compliance on 13.O5.2020 by personally being present before this Hon'ble Court.
03. In reply to para O3 of the Memo, it is submitted that it is not true that the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court were complied by the respondent authorities. In fact, this Hon'ble Court ordered appearance of the respondents, the District Collector, Siddipet and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gajwel on 07.O5.2O2O as well as on 13.05.2020 upon finding that the orders of this Hon'ble Court were violated by the said respondents and the payment of compensation and provision of R&R to the petitioners if the cases are adjourned for final hearing, is incomplete. Now, without appropriate directions for appropriate relief, the petltioners will be put to irreversible loss and injury. They will be left highly r,'ulnerable to the hot summer and dangerous COMD
-19 conditions, in the said three matters. It is further submitted that it is not correct that the matters W.P.342O of 2O19, W.Pgl46 of 2Ol9 aad VI.P25664 of 2Ol9 were listed before this Hon'ble Court only to ensure that the petitioners are paid tbelr dues. The said matters were listed last time before the Hon'ble Green Bench on 11.O3.2O2O and the interim orders subsisting were extended till Oa.O4.2O2O- The said matters are listed for the first time in this lock down period on 2O.O4.2O2O' only based upon the request of the oflice of the Advocate General' The reasons for listing of the said cases on that day were not known. There are stay and interim orders in the said cases. However, even before the said cases were taken up on 2O.O4.2O2O, the houses of the peiltioners were demolished and they were forcefully evacuated from their village on the night of 19.O4.2O2O. On 21.O4.2O2O, the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court consisting oI' Hon'ble Chief Justice and Hon'ble Justice Mr. A. Abhishek Reddy took a serious view of this act of the respondents, and directed the offlce of the Advocate General to file counter affidavit. The said illegal actions of the respondents was taken to the notice of this Hon'ble Court through urgent memo dt.2O.O4.2O2O and note dt.2l.O4.2O2O affidavit was filed and the matter listed on 24.O4.2O2O. The counsel for the petitioners sought time for filing detailed reply. The matter was posted again on 30.04.2020 and upon the request of the counsel for the petitioners the matter was posted to13.O5.2O2O for filing reply and further hearing. Accordingly, reply was filed on 12.O5.2O2O and served upon the office of the Ld. Advocate General. As the matter is related to dispossession of the petitioners in violation of the orders of this Hon'ble Court and against the provisions of the law without providing any compensation and R&R, particularly in a vulnerable and high risk period, I.e summer and COMD-I9 conditions, this Hon'ble Court deemed it fit to hear the matter for providing appropriate relief to the petitioners. Therefore the parties were directed to file counter and replies and posted for short dates. Now, adjourning this matter for final hearing for a later period will cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitioners and they will be left in a highly ',rrlnerable situation. It is also to be noted that on 24.04.2020 this Hon'ble Court declined the submission of the learned Advocate General on behalf of the respondents that cheques for compensation and R&R will be handed over to the petitioners. This Hon'ble Court observed that there are serious matters to be examined in these cases and posted the matters for hearing on 30.04.2020 and later to 13.05.2020.
04. In reply to para 4 and 5 of the Memo filed by the LD. Advocate General, it is submitted that the contents of the said paras are not related and relevant to the cases represented by this Counsel, I.e W.P.5415 of 2O2O, 2188 of 2O2O, 2389 of 2O2O, W.P.342O of 20Ig, W.P.g146 of 2019 and W.P.25664 of 2019.
05. In reply to para 7 of the Memo, it is submitted that W.P.2188 of 2O2O, W.P.2389 Of 2O2O and W.P.5415 of 2O2O were considered as extreme urgent matters by none other than the Hon'ble Chief Justice and were accordingly directed to be posted O9.O4.2O2O and taken up for hearing on several subsequent dates by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and finally posted on 13.05.2020. Even the matters W.P.342O of 2019, W.P.g146 of 2O19 and W.P.25664 of 2019 were firstly posted on 20.04.2020 and later on posted to
24.O4.2O2O, 3O.O4.2O2O and 13.05.202O as they were deemed extreme urgent matters by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Otherwise, as per the prevailing roaster, only fresh admission cases of 2O2O it is not correct to state that the said were to be listed. Therefore matters are not extremely urgent matters. The reading of the prayers in the said cases including the prayers in the I.As make it very clear that there is extreme urgency in the matters.
06. In reply to paras O8 to 11 of the Memo, it is submitted that the grounds and excuses stated in the said paras cannot be accepted and are untenable. It is pertinent to note that while 0I"' and 2"d phases of strict lock down was in force across the state, the office o1' the Advocate General managed to Iile counters, additional counters, documents running into thousands of pages in the above said matters from 09.O4.2O2O to 13.05.2020, electronically as well as manually. Mere perusal of the records relating to all the above cases reveal the same. There were no restrictions on the movement of respondent authorities as all are government oflicers and most of them have been coming personally to Hyderabad and to the oflice of Advocate General for hearing on almost all the dates starting 09.O4.2O2O till 13.05.2020. Further the District Siddipet, to which these cases are concerned is in green zone and no single active case of CO\IID - 19 is reported. It is also to be noted that during the complete lock down period only, several meetings were conducted by the authorities u.ith the petitioners on the directions of this Hon'ble Court. Further the petitioners were forcefully evacuated from their villages with the help of hundreds of police personnel during the same lock down period, in violation of the orders of this Hon'ble Court. It is surprising and intriguing that only from
13.O5.2O2O, the offlce of Advocate General sterted facing all the said technical and operational dlfflcultles in arguing the above cases, which it did not face even in the strict lock down periods earlier. When similar difficulties rvere brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court by the petitioners counsel, who have no wherewithal compared to the office of the Advocate General. this Hon'ble Court declined to postpone the matters and continued hearing the matters given the dire urgency. However, this Hon'ble Court was kind enough to grant permission to the counsel to lile soft copies of the Memos on behalf of the petitioners, instead of affidavits by the petitioners themselves and also directed the office of the Advocate General to provide the print copies of all the documents filed to the petitioners counsel. Further, this Hon'ble court also directed the respondents to issue passes to the petitioners so that they can come and meet their counsel for giving instmctions.
07. It is further submitted that. in connected matters. I.e W.P.7549 of 2Ol9 and batch. the oflice of Advocate General went to the extent of sending copies of all the flles to petitioners counsel situated in a Containment Zone in amid strict lock Vij ayawada down period. Considering the extreme urgency in the matters, this Hon'ble Court directed the same and the petitioners and their conunsel dutifully obeyed the orders of this Hon'ble Court and made themselves available for hearing the matter, despite severe constraints. Therefore. it is not correct to state that the said matters are not extremely urgent. The difficulties now cited by the office of the Advocate General are only imaginary, and even if real can be easily overcome, given the resouces and authority available with the office of the Advocate General for the State of Telangana.
In view of the above, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to decline the prayer sought in the Memo dt.l4.O5.2O2O filed by the Ld. Advocate General for the State of Telangana and to take up the hearing of the said matters urgently, for providing appropriate relief to the petitioners in the present challenging and life threatening conditions of severe summer and COVID-f9, in the interest ofjustice and equity.
Place: Hyderabad sd/-
Dt:15.05.2O2O COUNSEL FORTHE PE"IITIONERS IN
W.P.No. 2 188/2O2O,W.P.No.2389 2O2O,
W.P.No.54 l5 OF 2O2O, W.P342O / 2019,
W.P.No.9 1 46 / 20 19 and W.P25664 / 20 19
MEDAK DISTRICT
HIGH COUKT FORTHE
STATE OF TEI.ANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
VLP.No.2188 /
2O2O,
W.P.No.2389 2O2O,
W.P.No.54l5 OF 2O2O,
w.P342O/2Ot9,
WP9L46/2O19 and
w.P2566,4/2Or9
REPLY TO THE MEMO FILED
BY THE ADVOCATE RAL
THE STATE)OF TEI,AN
FILED ON: 15.O4.2O2O
FILED BY:
cH. RAVI KUMAR (16735)
AN/o-x"/l€ ^E
IN THE HIGH CoURT FoR THE STATE oF TELANGANA -.-
ATHYDERABAD .-'
FRIDAY. THE FIRST DAY OF MAY 1"
TWO THOUSAND AND'TWENTY
: PRESENT:
/'
TI{E HON'BLE TI{E CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHAVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND THI HON'BLE SIU JUT,"ICE A ABHISHEK REDDY \YIIIT P TION NO: 35059 OF 2 017.7549. 10393 & I l7r4 0F 2019 \\'P NO. 35059 0F 2017;
Betrveen:
. B. Venkatram Rcddy, S/o. Mallareddy ,.
I
2. B. Mallareddy, S/o. Ramreddy (Late) _ "
3l B. PramilA Wo. Krishna Reddy -
4. B. Premalatha, Wo. Malla Reddy __
5. M. Chandram, S /o, Ialaiah ,--
6. K. Satyanarayna Reddy. Sio. Ramreddl,(Late)
7. B. Balamani, Wro, Sanjiva Ileddy ,-
8. M. Ialaiah, S/o. Ialaiah (l"are) .-
9. B. Mahipal Reddy, S/o. Ranr Redly --
10, B. Vijayalakshmi, Wo. Mahipal Reddy
-., Petitioners
AND
l.State ofTe-langana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Depa(ment (j.A & L.A), T.S Seoetariat buildings, llyderabad v--''
2. State ofTelangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation and CAD .
Departrnent, T.S Secretdriat buildings. Hyderabad .-- 1 Chief Conimissioner of Land Administration and Chairperson, State levei monitoring committee on Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Nampaliy Station Road, Hyderabad "t---
4. Commissioner, Rehabilitatign and Resettlement, Government of Telanganh, Budha Bhavan. Hyderabad --''
5. District Collector, Siddipet District, Siddipet s-z-
6. Districl Joint Collector and Administrator, Rehabilitation and Resettlemenr Siddiper Distnct. Siddipet ,-. '
7. Land Acquisition Olticer curu R.D.O. Cajwel Division. Cajwel. Siddipet Disrrict Responder':rs Petition under Anicle 226 oi the Constitution ol India praying that in the circumsrances stated in the affidavit filed there*ith, lhe High Coun may be pleased to issue a Writ or order more particularly one in tha nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in issuing Prcliminary notification u/i l1(l) and Declaration u/s l9(l) rvithout complying $'ith the mandatory provisions of Act 30 of 2013 and proceeding to conduct award enquiry and pass a*rrds for the lands of the petitioners in B?rhilampur Viilage, Mulugu Mandirl as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and offending the petiti6ners. rights uhdef Article 14. Article' 19, Article 21 aad Article 300A of the constitution of India and consequently set asid,e the preliminary notifieation dated 15.11.2016, declaration under l9(1) vide file No. G1i36312016 dated 08.09.2017 and award enquiry notice dated 14.09.2017 issued for acquisition ofthe lands in Bahitampur Village, Mulugu Mandat, Siddipet Distria ..-- lA NO: 1 OF 2017 Petition under Section l5l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the *rit petition; lhe High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedingS pursuant ro rhe land acquisition declaration vide Gl/363/2016 dated 08.09.2017 and the arvard inquiry notice vide No. Dls4ll?Oli datedl4.09.20l7'of the Act 30 of 2013 for the lands in Bahilampur Village, lr,lulugu Mandal, Siddipet District Pending disposal of WP 35059 of 201'7. on rhe file of rhe High Court.
,-_"..
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in suppon thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ch Ravi Kuhar Advocate for the Petitioner aad Special Covemment Pleader for the respondents .r,,---
\\,1, No. 75{9 ()I 2lr 9r BenYeen:
l. Bollanr Sushi'ela, W/O. Bal Narsaiah
2. Minde Yadanrma, W0. Sayhaiah
3. Acdla Narsanrnta, W/0. Sailu l, r\edla \.{at ha.t,ur nta, WlO. Pochaiali
5. l'hamnrelr S; :rir as. S, o. Bal Lingam
6. -l"humnrrdi Aedla i)ochai::h. S/O. Sailu ;". r- galaju, S/O. Gururnurthi z/ 8, Aedla Il.antas anty.,, S, o. Narsaiah
t). Aedla Kistaier . S/o. Nersaiah t0. Aedla lvlallai; r, Sl0. Saitu I1. Aedla Yadaia , S''o. Sailu
12. Dacharam Ba riair, S/o. Kondaiah
13. Aedla Mallair'r, SlO. Rajamallaiah
14. Jeedikanti Por:haiah, S/O. Kistaiah l5. Tharnmala Vasudev, S/O. Bal Lingarn l6.Pachimadla Krishna Goud, SlO. Bal Narsaiah
17. Pachimadla Slilivas, S/O. Balnarsaiah
18. Pachimadla Brr I Narsaiah, S/o. Bhoornaiah I9. Badc Chandrairh, S/O. Sailu
20. Vanteru Devi rreddy, S,/0. Venkat Narsa Reddy' 2 L-l'harnnrala Pri eenkumar, S/O. Bal Lingam
22. l'hammala Nar cen Kunrar, S/o. Bal Lingam 23, DacharaLn Rar:.aiah, S/o. Kondaiah lJ. Daclraram \'1a ,riah, S,'O. Kondaiah
15. Dacharan Iial . rrsaiah. S,tr. Anjaiah
26.llollam Ilaghul .rthi. Sio. Narsaiah
27. Aedla Venkata i,rh. S/O. Saitu
28. Mothkuru Srvaroopa, WO. Ramachary
29.Thammala Bhtskar, S/o. Bal Lingam
30. Tekula Ashok O Shivakumar, S/o. Chandraiah
31. Devatha Dhanaiaxrni, W0. Amaranath Petit, oncr ANI) l, Statc of 'l-elangrna, Represented by its Principal Secretar-v, Rcvenue Departmt:nt (J.A andL.A),'l S Secretariat builtlings, Hyderabad
2. State ofTelanglna, Represented by its Principal Secretaly, lrrigatior. and CAI) Department. T.li Sccrelariat buildings, Hyderabad ) Conrmissirrncr, I.lehabilitation and Resettlement, (lover:unerri cf 'l el;rngana$Ldha Ilhavan. Ilyder ",ad .l I)istrjct Collect.r-. Siddipct District, Siddipet 5 District Joint Crllector and Administrator, R and Il Siddipet l-tistrict, Siddept 6 Special Depury Collector (L.A) and Revenue Divisional officel cum R.D.O, Gajrvel Division. Gajwel, Siddipet District 7 Mandal lahsildar. Mulugu mandal, Siddipet Disrict Respondents Petition under ..\rticle 226 of the Constitution ol Irrdia cral,inJ: that in rhe circurnstances stated in lhe affidavit filed therervith, the High Court nrav be please,l to issuc a rvrit. order or direction, nrore particularly one in iire nlture t:t' WRIT OF MANDAMUS, decl;,rir 3 the action of the respondent authorilids in issuirri: proceedings ,.tis l5(1) and dei;lai"al ,n u/s 19(1) of Act 30 of 20ll sill; regrrd tc, lancls of the
r)ctitionurs Linder ut;t1, ';it on i;t Manridvalt village tbr th,, pr lros:J purpose of coustructiot) ol Kondi:,lcllanlmasagar Iteservoir, rvilhout p-r,r,idiirg ell ihc rnaterial sought tbr in Tcluru tr :he petkioners, \\'ithout conducting per..olrai lrcarirrg lnd taking any action on representilr ions of the pelitioners and in violation olprovisions o|Act 3C ol 2013 as illegal, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the ll(l) notification issued vide No.G2l450/ l7 dt.30.01.2017.
Collector proceedings No.G214601201'1 dt.8.02.2019, Declarations vide Gazette N0.99/19 and No.l00/19 d1.06.03.20i9 and subsequent arvard enquiry notices vide Di17ll20l-l dt.12.03.2019 issucd for acquisition of the lands of the petitioners in Mamidyala village. Mulugu mandal The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the af{idavir filed in support thereof and made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K S Munhl' Advocate lor rhc Pctitioners rVP NO. 10393 OF 2019: ..--
Betwcen:
L Pachimadla Bal Narsaiah, S/o. Bhoomaiah
2. Pachimadla Srinivas, S/o. Balnarsaiah
3. AedlaPochaiah, S/o. Sailu
4. Dacharam Balnarsaiah, S/ o, Anjaiah
5. Dachararn Mallaiah,, S/o. Kondaiah
6. Thammala Bhaskar, S/o. Bal Lingam Petitioner AND l. State ofTelangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (J.A and L.A), T.S Secretariat buildings. Hyderabad
2. State of 'l'elangana. Reprcscnted bf its Principal Secretary. lnieation and CAD Depanment, T.S Sccretariat buildings, Hyderabad
3. State of Telangana, Represcnted by its Principal Secretary, Home Depar.rrnent. I-.
S Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad
4. Commissioner, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Government of Telangana, Budha Bhavan, Hyderabad
5. District Collector, Siddipet District, Siddipet
6. District Joint Collector and Administrator, R and R Siddipet District, Siddipet
7. Special Deputy Collector (L.A) and Revenue Divisional Officer cum R.D.O, Gajwet Division, Gajwel, Siddipet District
8. Mandal Tahsildar, Gajwel mandal, Siddipet District
9. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Galwel Division, Siddipet Polic e / Commissionerate, Siddipet District
10. Additional Deputl Commissioner of Police, (Larv and order), Siddipet Commissionerate. Siddipet District I l. Circle Inspector, Cajrvel Rural Circle, Gajrvel, Siddipet District
12. Sri Shivalingam., Circle Inspector, Gaju'el Rural Circle, Gajrvel, Siddipet District
13. Sub-lnspector, Gajwel Rural Police Station, Gajrvel,
14. Executive Engineer, Inigation department , Division -lI, Kaleswararn Project , Gajwel, Siddipet dist.
Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances statcd in the afhdavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a rvrit, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature oi WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of thc respondent authorities in, issuing declaration u/s l9(l) and arvard enquiry notices and causing forceful entry into the lands of the petitioners, allorving construction activities in the said lands in Mamidyala village and forcefully restraining lhe petitioners from entering into their orvn lands and subsequentll passing arvards without . the acquisition becoming final and rvithout passing arvards as illegal, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the declarations issued vide Gazette Nos.202/ 19 and No.203li9 dt.08.05.2019 and subsequent arvard enquiry notices vide D|17112017 dt.13.05.2019 arvards proceedings dated 03.09.2019 and arvard notices dated 1 I .09.20 l9 issued for acquisition of the subj ecr lands of thc petitir ners in Mamidyala village, Mulugu rnandal rr'hile directing the respondents to restors the possession and topography of the Detitioners iands to y,rgviqug position -along qitl oayment of appropriate compensalion hrr darnagcs (l'ral,eri.amendcd;spertheCourtorderdated0S.ll.20l9:rIA,No.'{ol20l9) --
-lhe pelitron onring on for hearing, upon perusing ii.e Petition irnd the aft-rdavit filed in support thert of'and upon hearing the arguments of S:i Ch Ra'"'i Kr-rinar Advocate for the Petitioners. :rni, Special Covernment Pleader lor Adrocate ()eniral, for thc Rcspondents r ' wP NO. 1t711 0F .1019:
Bctween:
l. Thammala Srinivas. S/o. Bal Lingam, Age. 50 years /'-
2. Tharnmala Naveen Kumar, S/o. Bal Lingam, Age 31 yr:ars .- -
3. Aedla Kistaialr" S.,'o. Narsaiah, Age. 49 ye ts '-''
4. Aedla Mathad,rmrna, Wo. Pochaiah, Age. 53 years
5. Mothkuru S*':.:oopa, \Vio. Ramachary, Age. 41 years --
6. D*'atha Dhar, ,lar:rni, W/o. Amaranath, Age. 54 years --
7. Thurnnri,d: Nr ..arrrju, S o. Gururnunhi, Age. 31 y'ears . ,
3. Acdla R.u:rrs\ 1nl), Narsaiah, Age. .i6 lears '
9. Jeedikarrti Pot arah, SAr. Kistaiah, Agc. 46 years "-
10. Tharnmala Va.rdcv, $/o. Bal Lingarn, Age. 47 years- 1 1 . Bade Cha:rdia:;rh, S/o. Sailu, Age. 66 yea$ ,-.''
12. Aedla Mallaiah. S/o. Sailu, Age. 48 years n' i 3. Aedla Nrusamlla. W/O. Sailu, Age &4 yeass /,'
14. Bollam Raghurathi, S/o. Narsaiah, Age. 54 years---
l5.Dacharam Balaiah, S/o. Kondaiah, AgeT2yews
--
16. Dachararn Ranrulu, Kondaiah, Age. 64 years ,,- l7.Tekula Ashok i! Shivakumar, S/O. Chandraiah, Age. 54 years ---
18. Aedla Mallaiah. S/o. Rajamallaiah, Age 6l ygars.
-, 19 Acdlu Yadrriah Sro. Sailu, Age. 53 years /
20. Ar'dla Vonlirtar rlr. Sio, Sailu, Age. 68 ),ears r' 2 L Boll,ur S.rshec' r. \l'rur. Ilzrlnarsaiah. Age. 50 )ears ' ll. l hanrma,l I)ra'. .'cnkunur. Slo. Bal Lingam Agc. l0 i crr:s,-.- '
23. Vantenr l)evi Ii iddy, Sio. VenkatNarsa Reddy, Agc. 5S ',ears _.-
24. Vinde Yadarnr;:r,'WO. Sayhaiah. Age. 4l years
25. Pachimadla Krlshna Goud, S/o. BalNarsaiah, Age. 36 1'elrs u'' Petitioner AND l. State of 1'elang:rrra, Represented by its Principal Secretar,v. Itevenus Dcparlrnrnt (J.A and L.A), I . S Secretariat buildings, I{yderabad .---'
2. State ofTelangana, Represented by its Principal Secretarr, Inigation and CAI Department, T.S Secretariat buildings, I{yderabad
3. State ofTelangan4, Represented by its Principal Secretarv, llonre Departmen!'f.S Secretariatbuildings,Hyderabad -,"
.1. Commissicner, il ehabilitation and Rescttlement, Covernllent ol'fclangana, BudhaBhar ac, i 1.,'derabati y.-
5. District Collce tr,r . S:ddipet District, Siddipet \?--
6. District.Toi;rt CoLrector and Administrator, R and R Siddrt,et District, Siddipet ,-
7. Special Deputy ( ollcctor (L.A) an<l Revenue Divisional ()fficer cum l{.D.O, Gajwel Division. Gajwel, Siddipet District -./'
8. Mandal 'lahsiklar. Cajwel mandal, Siddipet District ,.--
9. Assistant Commr.sioner of Police, Gajwel Division, Siddipet I'olice Commissioneratu. Siddipet Disrict
10. Additional l)epur1' Commissioner of Police, (Law and order), Siddiper Commissionerate. Siddipet Dishict ,,-
1l. Circle Inspector, Gajwel Rural Circle, Gajwel, Siddipet Distict
12. Executive Engineer, Irrigation department, Division JI, Kaleswaram Projeet Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondent authorities in issuing declaration u/s l9(1) and award enquiry notices and proceeding to pass awards for the lands of the petitioners in Marnidyala village rvithout following due process of law and forcefully restraining the petitioners lrom entcring itlto their orvn lands, rvithout the acquisition becoming final and rvithout passing arvards and subsequentll passing anards as illegal. unconstitutional and ag:rinst the principles of natural justice and consequentl)' set asidc the declarations issued vide Cazette Nos.202lt 9 and No.203i I 9 dt.08.0-5.20 l9 and subsequent arvard enquiry, notices vide D/]7112011 dt. I3.05.2019 a*'ard proc.eedin_u dured 03.09,2019 and auard notices dated I 1 .09.2d 19 issued for acqdisition of rhe subjecr lands of the petitioners in Mamidyala villagc. Mulugu Mandal \-..-- (As per the Court order dated 08.11,2019 in IA.. No.3 of 2019. The main prayer in lYP. No. ll7l4 of 2019. Thc words "and Subsequently passing awards" are addcd after the rvords "rvithout acquisition becoming hnal without passing awards" antl the rvords " award proceedings dated 03,09.2019 and award notices dated 1f.09.2019 are added aftcr the rvords "award enquiry noticcs vide file Dtl7ll20l7 dated I3.05.2019"
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the alfida'.it filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K S Murthy Advocate for the Petitioners, and Special Covernment Pleader representing for Advocate Cencral for the Respondents, the Court made the lollorving ORDER:
?hese writ petitions have been filed by certain land'losers of Mamidyala village and Bahilampur Village, Mulugu Mandai. According to them, due to the construction of the Kondapochammasagar which is part of Kaleswaram Lift Irrigation Project of the State, their lands are going to be inundated. Therefore, they are bound to loose their livelihood as the petitioners are the farmers of the said area.
Both the learned counsel for the parties are at ad idem that the petitioners have been shifted to the temporary accommodation provided by the State. However, the issue u'ith regard to the payment. of compensation uis-ri-uis the land owned by the petitioners, the issue with regard to the Rehabilitation and Resettlement scheme ('R&R schemeJ available to the petitioners, the issue with regard to the standing crops of the petitioners, which are presently ripe enough to be harve sted, and some of the crops which are not ripe enough to be harvested, are still pending before this Court.
Mr. B.S. Prasad, the learned Additional General, submits that the Oovemment is willing to pay the compensation for the land, and is willing to give the benefit of the R&R scheme under the Amendment Act of 2017 to the petitr,rners (rvc r now, Therefore, it is for the pe ition,:rs to accept the said compensation r, nd to reap the benefit of the R&R scheme.
On rhc orher hand, K.S. Murthy, the learneci counsel for the petitioners, submits that under the Second Schedule of the Act of 2017, the petiti:ners are land. However, the Cor'ernmeni is not making any equally entitlecl to land for offer lor giving land for land to the petitioners, but is merely offt:ring the package of ca qh amount and accommodation udder the R&R scheme. Therefore, the lr:.arned counsei pleads that the Gove-nment should be..r,illing to offer land fcr lar'.d as prcscribed by the Second Schclulc oI the Act of 2077.
Mr. tl}{. L t'i Kunrar, the learned counsei for thc petition,}rs in W.P. No. 10393 of 20 i9 further submits that presently. t re crops t,elongini to the petitioners are siarlding in their farm land. Therr fore, thc sa:ne need to be harvested. Mo:-:over, part ol the crop is not rip,: enolrgh :o be h:.rvested presently. Even if the respondents were to harvest he crop ri4rich is ready for harvesting, part of the food-grains need to be retarned b-v tht: petitioners for their annual co:'rsumption. Therefore, the petitione:'s should be perrr.itted to inform the Coll::ctor as to the quantity of the f ,od-grains that wruld be required for their" annual consumption. Moreover, lhe Siate should be rlirected to pay the supp(. 't price for the remaining harvestec. crcp u'hir:;-t is reatly to be han,esred preser ly. Furthermore, since part of tht: ':roy: is not ripe en,;ugh to be harvested, in :ase, the said crop were to be d:rtrraged, or harvested by the State, then lhe :ilate should be directed to pay the support plice for tre said unripe crop, The learnet.i Advocate General submits that the Government will certainly consider the proposal made by the petitioners for being given land for land. But, he is not in a position to make a categorical statement today as the offe ring of the land will depend upon the availability of the land in the cornmand area. Hence, he seeks time to sec} instructions fro:n the Governrnent befor: any categorical statement can be r:radc at the Bar.
As far as lh ' grant of compensation and the gr.lnt rrf R&R schc'me under the Act of 20','/ is .::oncerned, the learned Advocate Ci,: neral info:ms this Court that the Gove will certainly be willing to pal' ilre cotnpens€Ltion, zLnd to rnrn,::.rt grarlt the benclil oi tlie R&R scheme under the Act oi .1017 t,J lhe petition()rs.
He further irrlbrms this Court that since the irrigation project needs to be inaugurated, and:s scheduled to be inaugurated on 04.05.2020, he seel:s the permission to hanest the crop at the expenses of the respondents. lle assures this Court that the crop will be duly harvested in the presence of the petitioners. The s';ock so harvested 'rvill be marked qrra each p(:titioner. The petitioners will be given the option either to store the r:rop so harvested himself/herself or ::r case, the petitioncrs do not have sufficient space to store the crop, the lra:vr',-ted crop will safell' be kept by thc Colicctor, S:ddipet at a safe place- He further submits that the part. of the crop which is unripe, but rvhich needs to be harvested, the Government will quantify the said unripe crop, and will be willing to pay the support price for the same to the petitioners in order to safeguard their financial interests, Since the Government plans to inaugurate the irrigation project on 04.05.2020, he seeks the permission of this Court to permit the Covernment to hold the said inauguration on the said date.
Considering the fact that the paramount interest which needs ro be protected by this Court is the interests ol the land-losers, but simuitaneously, considering the fact that even the interests of the State in releasing the water for the benefit of the people of the State needs to be balanced by this Court, this Court passes the following orders:-
The District Collector, Siddipet is directed to ensure that the standing crop of each petitioner is surveyed by the Revenue Officers. The quantity of the standing crop shall be quantified for each crop standing in the farm lands of the petitioners. The sun'ey shall be done by the Revenue Officers in the presence of the petitioners. During the suwey, the petitioners shall not be coerced, or compelled to sign any blank papers, or sign any document which is not in Telugu language. Therefore, every single document should be signed by the petitioners shall be in the Telugu language.
Having completed the survey, the Collector shall be free to have the ripe crop harvested. But the harvest shall also be done in the presence of the petitionerS. The quantity so harvested shali be taken by the respondents to a dry place where the crop can be dried before it can be stored in the bags/containers. It is only after the crop has been dried, it shall be placed in bags/ containers which will be marked with indelible ink in the name ol individual petitioner. The petitioners shall be given the option to either store the crop himself/herself or by the State. The quantity of the harvest being handed over to the petitioners shall be signed by the petitioners in a memo prepared by the Revenue Officers. A Copy of the memo shall be given to the petitioners. It is made abundantlyclear that the Revenue Officers shall not lessen ttle quantity of the harvest being handed over to the petitioners, and shall not.coerce them to sign on any document, which may indicate a lesser quantity ol the harvested crop.
Even the crop which is presently unripe for harvest, shall be quantified by the Revenue Officers in the presence of the petitioners. In case the said crop were to be harvested, again a memo needs to be prepared by the Revenue Officers showing the quantity of the unripe harvested crop. A copy of the said document shall be handed over to the petitioners after the petitioners have signed the same and the original copy shall be kept by the Revenue Ofiicers for future reference.
The Governrn::1r is directed to pay to the petitione:s tlle s;upi..c:t price for rhe ripe harvested (jrop, and the unripe harvested crol) so that lhc financial interests of the petitioners are clearly protected. It is ()nly after ihis exen:ise has been duly carri,:'d out, a1e respondents would be p,)rmitted to release the \,'ater Fu:'ther, .he Disrrict Coliector is directed :c, hil,'e eacil direction mentioncci hcleinal rvt: vicieographed while it is bei:.g r:arried cut. 'fhe videograph copy shail be submitted to this Court and tlle copies of the same shall be furnished to the learned counsel for thc petitior:ers by the respondents.
The learned Advocate General is directed to inform this Court orr ttre next date with regard to t.ie grant of land for land to the petiticners.
st these caseri on 08.05.2020.
iti[iil]t$GISTRAR ,
/N"RL[: COPY//
SECTION OFFIC:lR
To,
l. The Principal See ;tary, Revenue Depanment (J,A & L,A), S:t e oilclarg::na. T.S Secretarial bui ldir ;s, l{yderabad
2. lhe Principal Sec.,:tary, Irrigation and CAD Department, Stirlc cf'|.]angrna. 'l .S Secretariatbuildir:,:s,Hyderabad /-
Principal Se::etary, Home Department, State of 'lelargana.'i.S Secretariat
-fhe
3. Luildings, I11'der:,bad
4. Chief Comnrissior.:r olLand Administration and Chairperson, .\tate level nr,:nitoring committee on Reh:bilitation and Risettlenrent, Nampally Statir;n Itoad, I'lyderabad
5. District Joint Colli:rtor and Administrator, Rehabilitation and R:settlenrer:t S:ddipet Districr, Siddipet
6. Land Acquisition r ;fficer cum R.D.O. Gajuel Division,- Gajrvcl, Siddipet Dislrict
7. The District Colle. :r, Siddipet, Siddiper District .-.--
8. State of Telangar:,,, Represented by its Principal Secretarl', Revcnue Department j (J.A and L.,\), 'f. Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad
9. Comr:rissicne r. B r habilitatron and Resettlement. Govornnl:nt of"fel;rngrna.
10. SpecialDep'ut1'C, llector (L.A) and Revenue Divisional O,icer cum R.D.O, Gajrvel Division, { iajlr'el, Siddipet District \--'
11. Mandal Talrsildar. Cajwel mandal, Siddipet District '-'
12. Mandal Tahsiidar. Mulugu, Siddipet District
13. Assistant Comrnis-.ioner of Police, Gajwel Division, Sidcip,":t Police .--
Commissionerate. Siddipet District
14. Additional Deputy' Commissioner of Police, (Larv and order'), Siddipet Commissionerate. SiddiperDistrict \-.'-
15. Circle lnspector, Cajwel Rural Circle, Gajwel, Siddipet District
-
16. Executive Enginee,r, Irigation department, Division -II, Kaleswaram Project Cajwel. Siddipet c rst. --
17. Sri Shivalingam., i.'ircle Inspector, Gajrvel Rural Circle, Gals,el, Siddipet District I 8. Sub-lnspector, Ca .vel l{ural Police Station, Cajwel, ,---
19. One CC to Sri Ch iiavi Kumar Advocate IOPUC]
20. One CC to Sri K..:1 .Vurthy Advocate [OPUC] .-'-"
'lwo CC to Spccia Govemrnent Pleader, High Court, Hyder.rbad { Ol.. T.i
21 .
22.T*,o CC to Advoc,,re Gcneral, High Court, H;,derabad(Ol-i'l r
23.'ftvo spare copies Avs
-.--
IIIGH COI]IIT I{CJ & AARJ Di\TED: 01.05.10:1) ),,iO'[E: I'OSl'O\ (r3.1 5.]r]20 OR.DER WIUT PE'll llo\ \(): 11059 Olf 2017, 75{9, 10393 & rlir{ 0F 2rJl,.
I)I ITIiCTIO N 11 xlr i:
/) [ar Me')t .rlg' - v HIGH COURT FOR T}IE STATE oF TELANGANA :: HYDERABAD ***x* ROC.NO.394/SO/2020 DATED: 13.04.2020 NOTIFICATION Sub: Complete lockdown declared by the Govemment of Tetangana throughout the State with effect from the midnight of 14.04.2020 (Tuesday) for 16 days - Extension of suspension of work in High Court for the State of Telangana from 14.04.2020 to 30.04.2020 - Taking up of o<treme urgent matters - Further Instructions - Issued, Ref: 1. High Court's Circular in Roc.No.394/SO/2020, dt.16.3.2020
2. Notice dated 25.3.2020.
3. High Courfs Notification in Roc.No.394/SOl20Z0, d1.27.3.2020.
** **,t In continuation/partial modification of the Notiffcation 3d cited, the regular Judicial and AdministraUve work in the High Court, which was suspended till 14.04.2020, is extended upto 30.04.2020. However, the High court will take up dire urgent cases namely bail applications, stay matters, and dire urgent fresh admission matters such as PILS.
Other instructions issued in reference 3d cited, shall continue to be in force till 30.04.2020.
REGIST E
l3 otr
Ar.rrvtr"ne--fi
couRT No 2
THE HONOURABLE SF,
JU$flCE rit.S .gAMACHAHORA RAO
THE sRl JUSNCE K.
(DAILY Llsr)
RESPONOEN'I AOY
@*^,^:u:"*"^o'
I CFPr,ac€02o
lA t,?O?o
AffiIPI CH RAVI I(UMAB
2 Yt?ly?or?ole
- la 1/2019
ll ?/!ol9
l9
lA 3?o
lA a/2O19
wrigtl6/2Otg
wPt2:E641&19
CH RAV| KUMAft
l wP/gt1&?0t9
tA lr20l9
lA ?i?0r9
1 wP/?se&al2o t I CH FAVI KUMAE
tA 1/?o19
.fr
tF
n=\
(y
$-
AJ
^-
-\-,
COUBT NO, 2 nAO
sRl JUSIICE i't'5'R AtTtACHINOAA
THE o ouFAALf
e 5Rl JU5 ltc
AM H
(OAILY LI$I) lIiTfiGT
iE POXOEi{! aoY'
FEfmotrcn ,lov $rL(iOH0i
glsc
iilo tr ttlll{r Tll Got'lo
:or rllll[sto! I qA.lllIIxA'tl ll lri l](rr
\' attprrSl')ozr MAHASTTRXAGAH
l^ tr?olo !rr'"1 rl !!'r r'1I irtt
rrl ,lrlr L
ll.ll'ltAll"rt li ll'llr'inl
"
MAHASUANA6AB
ll,ffiil o*'' o'
i :i: f i lil
"i'1,,i'', Il"l Hl OENAEAI)
.-r,rrr!\i.rLrrl,ll lri rar l"
,i' , ' tr t't v{ tl"t ''"'
i rJ\r l'\lrr(;i
iil, t.lll I lr?rLll1l'
I r it llaillu
,,r'r I rll r.tLl'!'ll lll lAL lAllliil
]1" I1l'r
rr la rallli! "ritlllii
:i"llir' *r r*l t.,
il
r !| I Irilr.' rrll-li "il
tl {r.r ln[i! 1r1']^''''i
I
i jt, lrr{11:r.rllill
llilrAL t'.r'llr:1
ta
i1' la 'l:r 111'
1,t l !.rll r. rlt'tlji
r1tult''ll l'lfl'l':l n,l I l("
lrt' f(-in
lll II '
Iifli',AAl1 iil.l-rilt \''lirUrtll
(;P roH qolftlr*lAt rrx 116!
5 t(flI5HHA MUF,HY
tl l
R !{ddt A Of,\'l PRA$AHNAKUUAR
16
lxf,Ala POoSEFLI
1?
5RFflVTAA nlo MAOINAJU 3T3AIffiEi?E\
,i8
M SfrIXAHlH fiEOOY
PasHl flofilrlr
1g
IA
c o^Mdnt*goov
2( lrtf IAx 6l r1Ynl RABA0
Itl DoY
6F foF CodiMEnclAt
ull ItAMFI
,*ee n'al AeX^n^
,t IA
}l fiavl PfrA6lo
BYutnAgAo
lax (lGl
eP fOR COMMSFCIA!
tr{@$prff'uriAo
YOL NABAD
6 flPe5f,wl EXB0te{s6 FO8
APfl(:i
r, J;|a;, ., x LFatt
vv FAl,x{r
7t
-' A.r,?o2o
ffirfl,f2o?o HYOERASAD
rr.ffeo2o
,*SOU,1| *,*nfn ntFUt Em0lmrhk?,^,,*
iwp6,terra@
l^tf,w
a2l,g20
,.*Cr@. HYDEflAAAO
..L*iM ,-
'$i1fl1,[iffsrdl"I*"^,
irrr.Fiu
?4
tl RAN6A NEOD\
SLB$L s €Al',lu
zr
- wrr!.tr'zclo
tl tr?oeo
(,P t ()R HlGtiEn EOUCAIIoN (1G-)
P V RAMANA ('P F()I1I TNANLL PL NNINTJ ( IIJI
28 srPi7008r?O?0
rA l/2020
WP/7125r102O
HYOf:RABAD
i,r, r l rll'li llvti 11 l. l, Li
'I
P V BAMANA
29 ! P/7 ! 35,/20?0
rA t /!O2o
KTIAMMAM
I;P I.OR SIAMPS AHO REGISINATION
SRINIVAS CHIIIUNU
30 rtPf530j?020
rA 1/?020 RANGA FEDOY
fi,P FOn cor.rM€fie uL IAX (rG)
SHA1K JfELANI BASHA
3t wP,786.1/"'(lll0
rA l':rt!:)Ll
HYOEFABAO
INT€RLOCUIONY PRABIiAKAR E|OIIAMIGANl
L PRAEHAKAR BEOOY
32 g"f,frg** B l
Pn os"o*o"
bccNryzozs ^o;FoBitBtJil"oho*'
t7t60'l
" HYOEBABAO
PBAAHAKAN BOMUAGANI
FEODY
L PBABHAKAR
33 cccAr'432020 HYOEFIABAO
lA.1./'a.zo
N USHA KIRAN
E'#1,:B1i$3":3#,1['J'ii'!93'
P)
IOR A
34 wP€94rr2@o
rA l/204o
lAzr2feo
ie srzozo
Ar.-rvex "/I€^";il
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI.ANGANA: HYDERABAD ***** ROC.NO.1202/SO/2019 DATED: 29.O4.2O2O NOTTFTCATTON Sub: COVID-19 Outbreak - Complete lockdown declared by the Government of India and the Government of Telangana - Cancellation of Summer VacaUon, 2020 for the High Court and the Subordinate Courts in the State of Telangana - Issued. Ref: 1. High Court's Circular in Roc,No.1202/SOl20l9, dt.25.11.2019, ****,1 Considering the exigencies caused by the pandemic of Covid-19 outbreak and in supercession of the Notification in the reference cited declaring the Summer Vacation for the year 2020, the Full Court of the Hon'ble High Court is pleased to cancel the Summer Vacation for the year 2020 to the High Court and all the Subordinate Courts, Tribunals, Telangana State Legal Services Authority, High Court Legal Services Committee, Telangana State Judicial Academy, and the Mediation & Arbitration Centre.
REGISTRAR GENE >.od