Telangana High Court
Padige Muthyalamma vs The State Of Telangana on 22 January, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.22927 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring:
a) the action of 1st Respondent in issuing G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 03-05-2023 without even Detailed Project report in place as arbitrary and illegal,
b) consequently the action of 6th Respondent in calling for tenders without even preparing Detailed Project Report as arbitrary, illegal.
and also being violative of Article 14, 21 and 19(1)(g) and Fifth Schedule of The Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case..."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are owners and possessors of agricultural lands in various survey numbers situated at Balmoor, Ananthavaram, Mylaram and Ambagiri Villages, Balmoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District and are dependent on agricultural income for their livelihood. It is contended that without adhering to the Andhra Pradesh Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Rules, 2011, issued under G.O.Ms.No.66, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Mdl.I) Department, dated 24.03.2011, and without 2 preparing a Detailed Project Report (DPR), the respondents are proposing to construct reservoirs in the subject lands under the Achampet Lift Irrigation Scheme. It is also contended that the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.14, Irrigation & CAD (Projects-II) Department, dated 03.05.2023, without obtaining approval from the Grama Sabha, which is mandatory under PESA Rules, 2011. The learned counsel argued that the respondents have failed to conduct a public hearing and did not obtain Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report, which is necessary before initiating the project and they have also not followed the procedure prescribed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013) to acquire the land for the project.
3. Per contra, Ms.Divya Adepu, learned Special Government Pleader representing the office of learned Advocate General relying on the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.6 has submitted that the Government accorded permission for conducting a survey pertaining to the Umamaheswara and Chennakeshava reservoirs with two lifts and a canal system vide Memo No.2391/project- II/A1/2021 dated 08.04.2021. The survey work for the Achampet Lift Irrigation Scheme commenced in April 2021. After detailed investigations and alternative studies, the scheme was proposed in 3 two stages: Stage-1: Umamaheshwara reservoir and canal network to irrigate an ayacut of 57,200 acres. Stage-2: Chennakeshava reservoir and canal network to irrigate an ayacut of 14,400 acres. Subsequently, tenders were invited in August 2023, and agreements were concluded in September 2023. The State Government then accorded administrative sanction for Stage-1 works, including the Umamaheshwara reservoir and canals, vide G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 03.05.2023. The Stage-2 works, aimed at providing irrigation for 14,400 acres, will be taken up subsequently. The detailed investigation and survey were carried out from 2021, and the Achampet Lift Irrigation Scheme was finalized in 2023. The project aims to provide irrigation to about 71,600 acres of upland areas that are not covered under any existing irrigation projects, thereby improving the socio-economic conditions of farmers. The Government has assured that it will strictly adhere to the PESA Rules, 2011, and the RFCTLARR Act in respect of land acquisition. It is further submitted that there are no residential structures or houses in the proposed project area, and the reservoir is located about 200 meters away from the village. The design and construction of the reservoir will incorporate cutoff walls and a cutoff trench with impervious soil to arrest seepage. It is also submitted that no Reserved Forest area is affected by the proposed reservoir. Representations and objections were raised in January 4 2024 and upon receiving them, the authorities/respondents initiated necessary steps in accordance with the rules.
4. In Union of India vs. Dr. Kushala Shetty and others 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
"24. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of National Highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would subserve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court can nullify the acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. In the case in hand, neither any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established nor the charge of malice in fact has been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained."
5. In M/s. Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd. & others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
"38. We have taken pains to set out the fact situation in some detail since a decision in this matter depends on the fact situation leading to the change of alignment of the Western Sector of the Outer Ring Road Project in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh. From the site plans of the area submitted by the parties, it is clear that both the two alignments touch and disturb existing water bodies, which was the main ground for the change of alignment in the 1 AIR 2011 Supreme Court 3210 2 (2010) 5 SCC 590 5 first place. From the reports submitted by the various local authorities, it is, however, clear that in order to proceed according to the first alignment, the respondents would have to cut through a great deal of rock, which is not so as far as the second alignment is concerned.
40. There is no doubt that in the facts of this case the public interest will out-weigh the interest of the individual plot holders. The only consideration is with regard to the preservation of the water bodies which are yet untouched, such as, plot No. 300 mentioned in the report of the Central Water Commission and also in the letter written by the Executive Engineer on 23rd December, 2006. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants have their positive value but looking at the problem holistically, we are of the view that their objections to the use of the lands for the purpose of the Outer Ring Road have to give way to the construction of the said road. However, while constructing the portion of the road affecting the plots in question, maximum care has to be taken by the concerned authorities to preserve as far as possible the water bodies over which the road is to be constructed.
43. Although, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned in the three appeals or to entertain the two writ petitions, we dispose of the same with a direction to the authorities to take all possible steps to ensure that the water bodies in the area are not unduly affected and are preserved to the maximum extent possible during the construction of the remaining portion of the Outer Ring Road on the Western Sector."
6. In the present case, since the respondents have categorically stated in the counter affidavit that before commencing the Project, they have issued a notification, invited objections from affected persons, and that they will follow PESA Rules, 2011, and RFCTLARR Act, 2013 in respect of land acquisition, it is not a fit case to stall the Project at this stage. However, to meet the ends of justice, before taking possession of the petitioners' lands, the respondents shall consider the pending objections, if any, raised by the affected persons and ensure compliance with all mandatory requirements under G.O.Ms.No.66 dated 24.03.2011 and the provisions of RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
6
7. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
__________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 22.01.2025 scs