Telangana High Court
Sri K. Mohan Reddy, Nagarkurnool Dist vs The State Of Telangana, Hyderabad And 9 ... on 4 February, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION Nos.33538 OF 2017 & 2981 OF 2018 AND
C.C. No.2563 OF 2018
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. Rama Krishna Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.7 in W.P. No.2981 of 2018, Ms. Kalla Tulasi Durgamba, learned counsel for respondent No.10 and Mr. M.P.K. Aditya, learned counsel for respondent Nos.13 to 18 in W.P. No.33538 of 2017, Mr. M.V. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.2981 of 2018, learned Assistant Government for Revenue, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development.
2. Lis involved in both the writ petitions is similar, while Contempt Case No.2563 of 2018 arose out of order dated 23.10.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.No.33538 of 2017. Therefore, both the writ petitions along with Contempt Case were heard together and the same are being disposed of by way of this common order.
3. However, for the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in W.P. No.33538 of 2017.
4. W.P. No.33538 of 2017 is filed by the petitioner: 2
KL,J W.P. No.33538 of 2017 & batch "...to declare the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 10 in digging the canal by deviating the original sanction plan approved by the Government consequently direct the respondents to restore/close the canal through petitioner land in Sy.No.169 and 157, set aside the same as it is illegal arbitrary unconstitutional motivated unwarranted and unsustainable against law as well as principles of natural Justice consequently direct the respondents to dig the canal in accordance with the original sanction plan in Sy. No.169 in Vanapatla Village....."
5. Subsequently, W.P. No.2981 of 2018 is filed by other set of people:
"..... to declare action of respondents Nos.2 to 6 in digging the canal by deviating the original sanction plan approved by the Government as arbitrary illegal un warranted and unconstitutional consequently direct the respondents to restore the petitioners land in Sy. Nos. 177, 169, 168 and 159 consequently direct the respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 18.09.2017 and consequently set aside acquisition proceedings initiated under Sections 9 (2) and 9 (3) dated 07.06.2012 in File No. E/54/11 including award passed if any and restore the petitioners' lands acquired 1 Acre 03 Guntas and...."
6. The petitioner in W.P. No.33538 of 2017 filed Contempt Case vide C.C. No.2563 of 2018 alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 23.10.2017 passed by this Court in W.P. No.33538 of 2017.
3
KL,J W.P. No.33538 of 2017 & batch
7. CASE OF PETITIONER IN W.P. No.33538/17:
i) He is the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.0.18 guntas in Survey No.169 and Ac.0.30 guntas in Survey No.157, situated at Vanapatla Village, Nagarkurnool Mandal and District (erstwhile Mahabubnagar District).
ii) He is eking out his livelihood by doing agriculture on the aforesaid land.
iii) The official respondents prepared a plan by conducting survey and the same was approved by the Government for digging a canal.
iv) Respondent Nos.3 to 7 while digging the Canal through the petitioner and other lands deviating the plan, he brought the same to the notice of respondent No.2 by submitting a representation dated 17.05.2016, but the same was not considered and illegally trying to dig the canal on the land covered by Survey No.157, where the land of the petitioner is also situated. There was no Notification in respect of the land in Survey No.157 for the said Canal.
v) The petitioner also submitted representations in 'Praja Vani on 27.06.2016, 05.12.2016 and 17.04.2017.
4
KL,J W.P. No.33538 of 2017 & batch
vi) Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.166682 of 2017, and this Court disposed of the same vide order dated 17.05.2016 basing on the representation made by learned Government Pleader that the respondents are not deviating the original sanction plan. However, this Court directed respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 17.05.2016, but the same was neither considered, nor passed any order on it.
vii) Without paying the amount and without issuing any notification in respect of the petitioner land, digging the canal is illegal and arbitrary.
With the said contentions, they sought to dismiss the present writ petition.
8. CONTENTIONS OF OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS:
Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 filed counter contending as follows:
i) Originally the land in Survey No.169 consists of Acs.2.09 guntas and Survey No.157 consists of Acs.3.30 guntas of Vanapatla Village belonged to one Mr. Venkat Reddy S/o Laxma Reddy. After his demise, succession proceedings were initiated in favour of his legal heirs, namely Mr. K. Laxma Reddy, Mr. K. Mohan Reddy (writ 5 KL,J W.P. No.33538 of 2017 & batch petitioner), Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, Mr. K. Sairam Reddy and Mr. K. Bhaskar Reddy. Their names were mutated as successors and pattadar passbooks were also issued.
ii) Pursuant to the requisition made by the Executive Engineer, Mahathma Gandhi Lift Irrigation Scheme (MGLISP, Nagar Kurnool, Division No.2 - respondent No.6), vide letter dated 25.07.2011 the land in Survey N.169 was acquired for formation of Minor-I of Dy.2L after following due process. Award was also passed on 23.12.2013 which was approved by the Special Collector, Bheema Project vide proceedings dated 28.12.2013.
iii) Though original pattas were not issued in favoour of aforesaid legal heirs of the original pattadar, Mr. V. Venkat Reddy, taking into consideration of their physical possession and enjoyment passed the aforesaid award.
iv) The lands in Survey No.157 were not acquired. The land in Survey No.169 contains an extent of Acs.14.37 guntas. The petitioner and his brothers have an extent of Acs.2.09 guntas out of which, an extent of Ac.0.17 guntas belongs to Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy was acquired though the names of petitioner and his brother were taken into consideration as possessors and joint award was passed for the said 6 KL,J W.P. No.33538 of 2017 & batch extent. Accordingly, the compensation amount of Rs.51,000/- was paid to Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy on 11.08.2015 towards his share and the land of the petitioner remains untouched for acquisition.
v) The contention of the petitioner that respondent Nos.3 to 7 are deviating from the original sanction plan approved by the Government in Vanapatla Village, Nagarkurnool Mandal, from the sanction land and digging the canal through the lands of the petitioner and other lands is without any basis.
vi) There is no change of sanction plan and there is no deviation in executing the works.
vii) The land in Survey No.157 was not at all acquired.
9. CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONERS IN WP No.2981/18:
i) They are the agriculturists by profession and are eking out their livelihood by forming their respective lands in Survey Nos.171, 172, 177, 169, 168, 160, 161, 162, 126 and 127 of the aforesaid Village.
ii) In the month of January, 2013, a field survey to dig the Canal through their land was conducted. The same was opposed by them as it would affect their livelihood. Pursuant to their objection, the said proposal was dropped.7
KL,J W.P. No.33538 of 2017 & batch
iii) Thereafter, an approval was made to dig the canal through Survey Nos.172, 176, 177, 169, 168, 157 and 158. But, their lands were acquired under Land Acquisition Act and started digging the Canal in Survey Nos.171, 172, 177, 169, 168 and 159 suppressing the original approved alignment and without touching the land covered by Survey Nos.176 and 157. Aggrieved by the said action, they made a complaint against the official respondents before the Lokayuktha and also made representations to the District Collector and Irrigation Departments, but no action has been taken so far by them.
iv) As per the original approval plan, the land of one Mr. Krishnamma in Survey No.177 to an extent of Acs.2-99 guntas; land of Mr. Ramireddy in Survey No.176; lands of petitioner in W.P. No.33538 of 2017, Mr. Ramakrishna Reddy in Survey No.157 would be affected, but suppressing the same, the Executive Engineer misled the Higher Officials taking advantage of political and official influence and illegally acquired the lands of these petitioners as against the original approved plan.
10. CONTENTIONS OF OFFICIALS RESPONDENTS:
Respondent No.3 filed counter contending as follows: 8
KL,J W.P. No.33538 of 2017 & batch
i) After following due procedure laid down under law and conducting field survey, the respondents acquired the lands of the petitioners in Survey Nos.172, 171, 177, 169, 168, 159, 158, 160, 161, 162, 133, 129, 127, 111, 126, 124, 121, making a total extent of Acs.17.35 guntas for the aforesaid Canal and even with their consent only Awards were passed on 23.12.2013. Pursuant to the said awards, compensation amount was also paid to the petitioners in W.P. No.2981 of 2018, the details of which are mentioned in page No.5 of the counter affidavit. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners are well aware of the fact of their lands coming under land acquisition and receipt of compensation for formation of aforesaid Canal. In view of the same, the contention of the petitioners is incorrect and, therefore, requested to dismiss the writ petition.
11. C.C.No.2563 FO 2018:
i) This Court passed interim orders on 23.10.2017 in W.P. No.33538 of 2017 to the effect that the respondents shall confine to the digging activities as per the sanction plan only. But, the respondents dug the canal by violating the sanction plan as well as the said interim orders of this Court and the proceedings dated 13.07.2018 would reflect the 9 KL,J W.P. No.33538 of 2017 & batch same. Thus, the respondents are liable to be punished under Contempt of Courts Act.
12. CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
Respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit narrating the mode of acquisition and the procedure followed thereof while acquiring the land in the aforesaid survey numbers and also passing awards etc. He further contended as follows:
i) The petitioner was not the pattadar in respect of the acquired land in Survey No.169 at the time of passing the award, dated 28.12.2013.
ii) The petitioner filed an application on 17.05.2016 to respondent No.2 and also made another representation dated 30.06.2015 in Prajavanni, which was sent to respondent No.6 for taking further action. In respect to the said representation, the Surveyor conducted the survey in Survey No.157 and filed report on 04.10.2017. According to the said survey, the land of the petitioner in Survey No.157 is not affecting under the Canal. Therefore, the question of digging in his land in Survey No.157 does not arise.
iii) Vide letter dated 18.11.2017, respondent No.6 informed that the earth work excavation in Survey No.169 was completed as per 10 KL,J W.P. No.33538 of 2017 & batch approved alignment plan. Thus, the respondents did not violate the orders of this Court.
13. W.P. No.33538 OF 2017:
i) In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, the main contention of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0.18 guntas in Survey No.169 and Ac.0.30 guntas in Survey No.157 of Vanapatla Village of Nagarkurnool Mandal District.
The official respondents without issuing any notification in respect of the land in Survey No.157 and without paying any compensation acquired his land. Therefore, the said action of official respondents is arbitrary and illegal. Whereas, it is the contention of official respondents that they acquired the land in respect of Survey No.169 to an extent of Acs.1.21 guntas for formation of Minor-I of Dy-2L and that they did not acquire any land in Survey No.157. Even in Survey No.169, the petitioner and his brothers have an extent of Acs.2.09 guntas of which, only an extent of Ac.0.17 guntas was acquired and that the said extent of Ac.0.17 guntas of land belonged to one of the brothers of the petitioner i.e., Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy and accordingly an amount of Rs.51,000/- was paid to him as compensation on 11.08.2015. The land of the petitioner did not acquire. Therefore, according to the official respondents, the 11 KL,J W.P. No.33538 of 2017 & batch contentions of the petitioner that his land was acquired without paying compensation and that the official respondents deviated from the original sanction plan approved by the Government in Vanapatla Village, Survey Nos.169 and 157 etc., are incorrect.
ii) Perusal of land acquisition sketch plan filed by both the parties would show that the there is no canal passing through Survey No.157 at all and that the subject canal is passing through Survey No.169. As far as Survey No.169 is concerned, as stated above, it is contended by the official respondents that the petitioner and his brothers have an extent of Acs.2.09 guntas of which, only an extent of Ac.0.17 guntas was acquired. The said extent of Ac.0.17 guntas of land belongs to one of the brothers of the petitioner i.e., Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy. Accordingly an amount of Rs.51,000/- was paid to him as compensation on 11.08.2015. In view of the same, it is clear that there is a dispute with regard to title among the brothers of the petitioner as the petitioner is also claiming a right over an extent of Ac.0.18 guntas in Survey No.169. If really the petitioner has any right, title or interest over the land in Survey No.169, it is for him to approach competent Civil Court seeking adjudication of the same including declaration of his title over an extent in Survey No.169 and also payment of compensation etc. But, the same 12 KL,J W.P. No.33538 of 2017 & batch cannot be decided in a writ petition filed under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, to establish his right over the land in Survey No.169.
iii) As far as Survey No.157 is concerned, it is contended by the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0.30 guntas in Survey No.157 of Vanapatla Village. The official respondents deviated from the original plan approved and dug the subject canal through various Survey Numbers including the land of the petitioner in Survey No.157 without issuing any notice and without paying any compensation. Despite submitting representations to the official respondents, the same were not considered. Thus, the action of official respondents in digging the subject canal through the land of the petitioner in Survey No.157 is illegal and arbitrary. Whereas, it is contended by respondent Nos.1 to 4, 8 and 9 that they did not deviate from the original sanction plan by digging the canal works through the land of the petitioner in Survey No.157. They further contended that they never acquired the land in Survey No.157, as such, question of issuing notification and making payment does not arise. 13
KL,J W.P. No.33538 of 2017 & batch
iv) As per the material available on record, the contentions of respondent Nos.1 to 4, 8 and 9 that there is no deviation from the original sanction plan approved by the Government and that they never acquired the land in Survey No.157 etc., cannot be accepted in view of the Vigilance Report No.35 (C.No.59/V&E/E.III/2018), dated 19.07.2019 of Director General (Vigilance & Enforcement).
v) Perusal of Vigilance Report dated 19.07.2019 would reveal that the farmers of Survey Nos.169, 168, 159, 158 and others have represented to the Higher Authorities that the present alignment is passing through middle of their holdings and made a request to dig the Canal from the one end of their survey numbers with a further request that it would provide water to their lands completely. The Villagers of Manthati and three others requested to provide water by completing digging balance length of Canal. But, the farmers in Survey Nos.169, 168 and 157 etc., were unwilling for excavation of the canal as per the land acquired. However, at the request of the public representatives, the Higher Authorities thought of changing alignment of canal for which if required some more land may be acquired in Survey Nos.169 and 159, to ease the situation.
14
KL,J W.P. No.33538 of 2017 & batch
vi) In the said report, it was observed that the concerned officers executed, recorded and recommended for payment without approved alignment. In view of the same, the Director General (Vigilance & Enforcement) recommended the Government to initiate disciplinary/departmental action against the erring Officials/Engineers for recommending revised alignment without technical feasibility and execution of canal temporarily without approved alignment and making payment thereof causing huge loss to the Government Exchequer. The said report shows that the official respondents deviated from the original sanction plan and excavated the works in respect of the subject canal. It appears that as per the Geo-referenced Cadastral Data available in Bhuvan-2D, Indian Geo-Platform of ISRO, the excavation work in respect of the subject canal is also passing through Survey No.157 of Vanapatla Village. Thus, the contention of official respondents that they never excavated the canal works through Survey No.157 is incorrect.
vii) In view of the above, the official respondents have to take necessary steps for acquisition of the land of the petitioner in Survey No.157 of Vanapatla Village and pay compensation in accordance with law. Thus, this writ petition is liable to be disposed of accordingly. 15
KL,J W.P. No.33538 of 2017 & batch
14. W.P. No.2981 OF 2018:
i) In this writ petition, the relief claimed by the petitioners is that to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 6 in digging the canal by deviating from the original sanction plan approved by the Government as illegal and for a consequential direction to restore the lands of the petitioners in respect of Survey Nos.177, 169, 168 and 159.
ii) Perusal of counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 would reveal that the official respondents acquired the lands of the petitioners in Survey Nos.172, 171, 177, 169, 168, 159, 158, 160, 161, 162, 133, 129, 127, 111, 126, 124 and 121, making a total extent of Acs.17.35 guntas. Even consent awards were also passed on 23.12.2013. Pursuant to the said consent awards, compensation amounts were also paid to the petitioners in respect of Survey Nos.177, 169, 168 and 159, the details of which are mentioned in page No.5 of the counter affidavit. It is no doubt true that the official respondents deviated from the original sanction plan approved by the Government as observed in the Vigilance Report, dated 19.07.2019. But, the petitioners were paid compensation for the acquisition of their lands by the Government. Therefore, having received the amount from the Government for acquisition of their lands, it is not fair on their part to seek a relief for restoration of their lands 16 KL,J W.P. No.33538 of 2017 & batch from acquisition. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled for the said relief, and at the most, they can seek a relief for enhancement of compensation.
Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
15. C.C. No.2563 OF 2018:
i) The petitioner in W.P. No.33538 of 2017 filed this contempt case alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 23.10.2017 passed by this Court in the said writ petition.
ii) Perusal of order dated 23.10.2017 would reveal that this Court passed interim order on 23.10.2017 in W.P. No.33538 of 2017 to the effect that the respondents shall confine to the digging activities according to the sanction plan only. Whereas, the respondents started excavation works in respect of the subject canal by deviating from the original sanction plan approved by the Government and thereby the respondents violated the interim order dated 23.10.2017. Thus, according to the petitioner, the respondents violated the orders of this Court.
iii) The present contempt case is filed against Mr. Sridhar, the District Collector, Nagarkurnool District, Mr. Sridhar, the Joint Collector, Nagarkurnool District, Mr. Ramulu, the Special Deputy 17 KL,J W.P. No.33538 of 2017 & batch Collector, Bheema Project, Mr. Khagendhar, the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Bheema Project, Mr. Sanjeeva Rao, the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Bheema Project, Mr. Manik Prabhu, the Deputy Engineer, Irrigation Department, Bheema Project, Mr. Srinivasulu, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool Division, Mr. Srinivasulu Suri, the Thasildar, Vanapatla Village and Mandal, and Mr. Venkateswara Rao, KLI Works Agency, Contemnors. Whereas, as per the Vigilance Report dated 19.07.2019, the Director General (vigilance and Enforcement) found fault with Mr. T. Ram Chander, Executive Engineer, Mr. Sanjeeva Rao, the Executive Engineer, Mrs. G. Malathi, Deputy Executive Engineer, Mrs. A. Shailaja, Deputy Executive Engineer, Mr. T. Sridhar, Assistant Executive Engineer, Mr. P. Sravan Kumar Reddy, Assistant Executive E2ngineer and Ms. M. Sinduri, Assistant Executive Engineer, for committing irregularities in execution of canal works by revising alignment and making payments etc., and accordingly recommended the Government for initiation of disciplinary and departmental action against them. The petitioner herein did not make them as parties except one Mr. Sanjeeva Rao, the Executive Engineer (respondent No.5). As per the said vigilance report, respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 9 herein were not committed any irregularities and, 18 KL,J W.P. No.33538 of 2017 & batch therefore, they are not liable for punishment in this contempt as alleged by the petitioner.
iv) As far as respondent No.5 is concerned, as per the Vigilance Report, dated 19.07.2019, the irregularities committed by him are as follows:
a. Revised alignment recommended without technical feasibility and even after payment was made four (04) years back; b. Levels certified for already dug canal moreover W.P. No.33538/2017 and W.P. No.2981 of 2018 are in force. c. He has deviated PWD Rules and agreement conditions; d. Not furnished required information to V&E.
v) In view of the above, it is clear that respondent No.5 is neither executed the canal work nor prepared the revised alignment. Thus, there is no violation, much less willful and deliberate violation of the interim order dated 23.10.2017 in W.P. No.33538 of 2017 by respondent No.5.
In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner has not made the officials who violated the orders of this Court except respondent No.5. As stated above, respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 9 are not liable for contempt as they have not violated the interim order dated 23.10.2017 passed by this Court in W.P. No.33538 of 2017 as per the Vigilance 19 KL,J W.P. No.33538 of 2017 & batch Report, dated 19.07.2019. The petitioner has not made the officials who violated the interim order dated 23.10.2017 except respondent No.5 as contemnors in the present Contempt Case. As discussed above, there is no violation of order under contempt by respondent No.5 also. Therefore, this contempt case is liable to be closed against the respondents herein.
16. CONCLUSION:
i) W.P. No.33538 of 2017 is disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to inspect the land of the petitioner in Survey No.157 of Vanapatla Village, get the same surveyed and if it is found that excavation works were found in respect of subject canal, take necessary steps for acquisition of land and payment of compensation in accordance with law. They shall complete the entire exercise within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As far as Survey No.169 is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue civil remedies before the competent Civil Court.
ii) W.P. No.2981 of 2018 is dismissed.
iii) C.C. No.2563 of 2018 is closed.
iv) In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.20
KL,J W.P. No.33538 of 2017 & batch As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petitions and contempt case shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 4th February, 2025 Mgr