Telangana High Court
WP/15646/1997 of K. Manikyam, Vs State of A.P., on 22 December 2006
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SIX PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.15646 of 1997 Between: 1.K.Manikyam and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND SIX
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.15646 of1997
Between:
1.K.Manikyam and others.
AND
..... PETITIONERS
1.State of Andhra Pradesh through itsSecretary, Municipal Administration &Public Health Department, at Secretariat,Hyderabad, and others.
.....RESPONDENTS
The Hon’ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao
Order:
Writ Petition No.15646 of 1997
This writ petition was instituted by 25 personsaggrieved by the inaction of the respondent–State authorities in redressing their grievances though theirlands are getting submerged during the monsoonseason resulting in crop loss. They further seekdirections to the respondents to acquire their lands inaccordance with law.
The writ petitioners have given complete detailsof the lands together with survey numbers, which aresituated in Minpur Village, Pulkal Mandal, MedakDistrict. It appears that when the State Governmenthas undertaken construction of Manjeera ProjectPhase- III for providing drinking water to HyderabadCity, the lands belonging to the writ petitioners weresuspected to suffer submergence and consequently,proposals for acquiring their lands under Section 4(1)of the Land Acquisition Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’)have been initiated. These proposals were alsoapproved by the District Collector on 8[th] October,2000, but however, when the Executive Director ofthe Sewerage Board, upon verification, called for aresurvey of the entire land, which is likely to besubmerged and required to be acquired, a specialteam comprising of necessary technical staff hasbeen constituted and it undertook the resurveyoperations on 30[th] October, 2002. This team foundthat since there was no change in the original contour line of submergence area at FRL of + 1651-75 feet ofManjira Barrage, there is no need to acquire the landsin question. It was further realized during the jointinspection that during monsoon, whenever the floodgates of Singoor dam were opened, simultaneously,the down stream Manjeera dam flood gates are alsogetting opened, thus, discharging the excess waterfurther down stream. Therefore, the inspection teamfound that there would not be any submergence ofadditional lands requiring their acquisition. In fact,the Special Deputy Collector, Singoor project atMedak District, had asserted in his counter-affidavit,that in the past four years, notwithstanding the factthat the dam gates of Singoor have been opened upduring the monsoon season, letting off the watersdown stream, the lands belonging to the writpetitioners have not suffered any submergence.
In this view of the matter, the prayer of the writpetitioners that their lands, which are sufferingsubmergence, be directed to be acquired by therespondents for the purpose of construction of PhaseIII Manjeera dam cannot be granted.
However, if the lands of the writ petitioners aregetting submerged, resulting in any eventual croploss due to release of waters from Singoor Dam during the monsoon season, they should becompensated for such a loss. Preserving this right ofthe writ petitioners to seek appropriate compensationfor any crop loss due to release of waters by theSingoor Dam down stream, the writ petition isdismissed, but however, without costs.
_________________________
(Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J)22ndDecember, 2006LUR