Telangana High Court
Kandukuri Rama Krishna, vs The State Of Telangana Represented By on 24 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION No.3861 OF 2013
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
"... to issue an order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
a) Direct the respondent No.1 to 10 to pay
the exgratia amount/compensation amount
of Rs.2,00,000/- to each of the dependent
family in lieu of the untimely death of their
minor sons by name Kandukuri Venkatesh,
Kandukuri Venu and Ravula Narasimha
Rao all aged 8 years at the time of death on
23.01.2011 at Kinnerasani Project (L.F.
Head Sluices), Paloncha due to the gross
negligence of the respondents
b) To direct the respondents to provide Luskar
job to each of the dependent family besides.
c) Directing the respondents to initiate case,
against the erring employees of Kinnerasani
Project (L.F. Head Sluices), Paloncha who
were responsible for the the untimely death
of the above minor children, under the
provisions of Indian Penal Code and pass
such other order or orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case."
2. Heard Mr. S. Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for
petitioners, learned Assistant Government for Revenue for
respondent Nos.1, 2, 8 and 9, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for I&CAD, for respondent Nos.4 to 7,
and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for
respondent Nos.3 and 10.
JAK, J
3. The case of petitioners is that one child of each of the
petitioners, aged around eight (8) years, who were
students, three of them, died on 23.01.2011 in Kinnerasani
Project.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that
children of petitioners went to hear the sluices at
Kinnerasani Project at Paloncha, while they were looking at
the unprotected sluices, all of a sudden, all the three
children slipped from the sluices and fell inside the
Kinnerasani Project. As they did not know swimming, all
the three children died.
5. It is submitted that gross negligence of respondent
Nos.1 to 9 led to the accident. That the Minister of State of
Andhra Pradesh visited the spot along with other villagers.
It is further submitted that Minister discussed the issue
with the Irrigation Department officials and respondent
Nos.1 to 10 announced an ex-gratia of Rs.2,00,000/- to
each of the deceased families and one job of luskur post to
each dependent family, and also promised to initiate
criminal action against the respondent authorities. It is
JAK, J
also submitted that notices were issued to respondent
authorities, which were served on respondent Nos.5 to 9,
but there was no response.
6. It is submitted that petitioners approached the
Chairman, Legal Services Authority, Kothagudem, seeking
a direction to respondent Nos.5 to 9 for passing an award
for payment of ex-gratia amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and one
luskur post to each of the deceased family members.
That though notices were issued, when the matter was
listed before the Legal Services Authority, the respondent
authorities failed to fulfill the promises. It is pointed out
that on 22.09.2012, the Mandal Legal Services Authority
closed the petition granting liberty to the petitioners to
approach the proper forum.
7. It is the case of petitioners that State Government is
vicariously liable for gross negligence of authorities and
having promised to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as
ex-gratia besides one luskur post to each of the dependant
families, yet the respondent authorities failed to take
action. Hence, writ petition.
JAK, J
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue
for respondent Nos.1, 2, 8 and 9 submitted that under
'Apathbandu Scheme 2013-14', an amount of Rs.50,000/-
is to be released to the deceased family through bank
accounts within seven (7) days from the date of death.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader invited the
attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.7, Revenue (DM.I)
Department, dated 06.03.2014, whereby the Government
of Andhra Pradesh announced an amount of Rs.50,000/-
to be paid for such of those deaths covered under the
scheme. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.50,000/-
each will be paid under 'Apathbandu Scheme' to below
poverty line families in case of accidental death in the
family w.e.f. 02.11.2013 and hence, the amount shall be
paid in accordance with G.O.
9. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and
considered the submissions.
10. Petitioners are parents of three children, who were
aged around eight (8) years. It is not in dispute that the
three children were not aware of swimming and they
JAK, J
slipped and fell into Kinnerasani Project from the sluices
when they visited the Project. The issue was reported in
newspapers. As per the averments in the affidavit filed in
support of the writ petition, the Minister visited the spot
and spoke to the Irrigation Department officials and with
other respondent authorities. It is further averred that an
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as ex-gratia for each of the
deceased family members and one job of luskur post is said
to have been promised. Learned counsel for petitioners
relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kumari (SMT) vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others 1. The
relevant paragraphs are as follows:
"... 2. Six years old son of the appellant
died as a result of falling in a ten feet deep
sewerage tank in the city of Madras. The tank
was not covered with a lid and was left open. The
appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India before the Madras High
Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to pay Rs.50,000/- as
compensation to the appellant. The High Court
dismissed the writ petition on the ground that in
writ jurisdiction it was not possible to determine
as to which of the respondents was negligent in
leaving the sewerage tank uncovered.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the
case we set aside the High Court judgment and
direct that respondent 1, the State of Tamil Nadu
(1992) 2 SCC 223
JAK, J
shall pay to the appellant to sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand) with interest at 12 per
cent per annum from January 1, 1990 till the
date of payment. The amount shall be paid
within six weeks from today. It will be open to
the State of Tamil Nadu to take appropriate
proceedings to claim the said amount or any part
thereof from any of the respondents or any other
authority which might be responsible for keeping
the sewerage tank open. The claim, if made, will
be decided in accordance with law. The appeal is
allowed in the above terms. There will be no
order as to costs."
11. Learned counsel further relied on the judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in
Court on its Own Motion vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
and Others 2 and contended that after discussing the
entire case law, the Division Bench saddled the liability.
The relevant paragraphs are as follows:
"105. Keeping all these factors in view read
with the inquiry report of the Divisional
Commissioner, the Board Authorities had the
major role and they have failed to exercise due
care and caution, thus, are to be saddled with
liability at least to the extent of 60%.
106. The unfortunate students were on
excursion and the role of the College Authorities
was also important. They should have
ascertained all facts including the
circumstances and other factors prevailing in
the area, where they were planning to visit.
107. In Deep Chand Sood's case (supra),
the school had arranged picnic for the students,
15 boys met with the same fate and the Court
2017 ACJ 1271
JAK, J
held that the school concerned is also liable,
even though the school was not falling under
the definition of State or instrumentality of the
State as per the mandate of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India.
108. Accordingly, we deem it proper to
hold that the College is liable to the extent of
30%.
109. In view of the above, the State is also
saddled with liability to the extent of 10%.
110. Learned Amicus Curiae and the
learned counsel representing the parents of the
deceased students have placed on record the
material, which do disclose that in addition to
Rs.5,00,000/- awarded as interim
compensation, the insurance amount, the ex-
gratia by the States of Himachal Pradesh,
Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and also tuition
fee has been refunded by the College, the details
of which are as under:
Sl.No. Details Amount (per student)
1. State of H.P. ₹ 1.50 lac
2. State of Telangana ₹ 5.00 lac
3. State of Andhra Pradesh ₹ 5.00 lac
4. Insurance amount ₹ 2.00 lac
5. Refund of tuition fee ₹ 45,000/- - ₹ 1.74 lac
111. The question is - whether this amount is
to be adjusted towards the total amount of
compensation? The answer is in the negative for
the following reasons:
112. This issue was raised before the Apex
Court and other High Courts in the cases
discussed herein above and it was held that the
perks, fee, the insurance amount and other
such amounts cannot be deducted.
113. The tuition fee and the insurance
amount was their own money. The other
amounts granted by the State Governments of
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh as ex-gratia
JAK, J
have no role to play. It is just the gesture of the
State Governments.
114. Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex
Court and the other High Courts, this amount is
to be excluded from the amount of
compensation.
115. Having glance of the above discussions,
Rs.20,00,000/-, including the interim
compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-, with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from today till its
final realisation is awarded in favour of the
parents of each of the deceased students and
against the Board, College and the State of
Himachal Pradesh in the ratio of 60:30:10.
116. They are directed to deposit the amount
after making deduction of ₹ 5,00,000/- awarded
as interim compensation paid by the Board and
the College within eight weeks before the
Registry of this Court.
117. On deposition of the amount, the same
be released in favour of the parents through
payee's account cheque or by depositing in the
their respective accounts, the details of which
shall be furnished by the learned Amicus Curiae
or the learned counsel representing the parents
of the deceased students, in the Registry.
118. It is made clear that the findings
recorded herein above are only prima facie in
nature in order to grant compensation, as per
the discussions made herein above, cannot be
made basis for recording judgment(s) in any civil
suit, criminal proceedings or departmental
proceedings.
119. Before parting with, we deem it proper to
place on record a word of appreciation for the
valuable assistance rendered by the learned
Amicus Curiae, learned Advocate General,
learned Advocates who appeared in this case,
the Divisional Commissioner Inquiry Officer and
the other officers, who have assisted this Court.
JAK, J
120. Having said so, the lis is disposed of along
with all pending applications, as indicated
herein above."
12. It is not in dispute that the children of the petitioners
fell into Kinnerasani Project and died.
13. The contents of the counter affidavit filed by
respondent No.10 are as follows:
"3. It is respectfully submitted that the 3rd
petitioner Ravula Rama Rao had lodged a
complaint on 24.01.2011 with the Station House
Officer, Palonch Rural Police Station, stating that,
on 23.01.2011 the petitioners sons by name
Ravula Narasimha, Kandukuri Venkatesh,
Kandukuri Venu have visited the Kinnerasani
Project on 23.01.2011 and fell in the said Project
canal and died. In this connection a case in
Cr.No.5/2011 U/s. 174 Cr.P.C. have registered on
24.01.2011 on the file of Paloncha Rural Police
Station, Khammam District. It is submitted that,
the investigation revealed that, the sons of the
petitioners accidentally drowned into the said
canal and died. After obtaining permission from
the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kothagudem
vide C.No.5/Cr/SDOK/2011, dt.04.03.2011 the
final report was filed on 06.03.2011 before the
Hon'ble Mandal Executive Magistrate, Paloncha,
Khammam Dist.
4. It is respectfully submitted that with
regard to payment of ex-gratia to the petitioners of
the police are nothing to do. The Irrigation
Department is the competent authorities to pay
the ex-gratia to the petitioners herein.
5. It is respectfully submitted that, after
going through the contents of the affidavit, it is
revealed that, the 9th respondent Revenue
JAK, J
Divisional Officer, Paloncha has addressed a letter
to the 5th respondent Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Department, Paloncha requesting to
make necessary arrangement for payment of ex-
gratia amount to each of the deceased family. It is
also revealed that the petitioners herein also
approached the Hon'ble Mandal Legal Services
Committee (V Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge)
Kothagudem vide PLC SR No.85/2011 and sought
for a direction against the Irrigation and Revenue
Department to pay the ex-gratia to them. It is
submitted that, by order dated 15.05.2012 the
Hon'ble Committee issued notice to the District
Collector, Khammam.
6. It is respectfully submitted that, the
Irrigation and revenue departments are liable to
pay the ex-gratia if any to the petitioners herein.
It is submitted that, this respondent has nothing
to do payment of ex-gratia to the petitioners
herein. The petitioners are at liberty to approach
the competent authority for ex-gratia. Hence in
view of the above facts and circumstances, the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed against this
respondent."
14. On a perusal of the contents of the counter affidavit
filed by respondent No.10, it is apparent that on
investigation, the children (sons) of petitioners accidentally
drowned into Kinnerasani Project and died. It is further
averred that the Irrigation Department and the Revenue
Department are the competent authorities to pay ex-gratia
to the petitioners.
JAK, J
15. On a perusal of the contents of the counter affidavits
filed by respondent Nos.9 and 10, it is evident that the
deaths occurred due to an accidental slip in the rear bund,
resulting in drowning. It is also evident that safety
measures like sign boards were not present.
16. The fact that there was enough supervision and
maintenance and enough safety measures such as sign
boards were existing is not forthcoming from the counter
affidavits. The investigation of Superintendent of Police
revealed that sons of the petitioners accidentally drowned
in the canal. These facts are suffice to conclude that
petitioners are eligible for the ex-gratia amount.
17. As far as the question of one job of luskur post to
each of the dependant family members is concerned, this
Court is not inclined to accede to the contention of learned
counsel for petitioners. The payment of ex-gratia amount
for an accidental death, for absence of the safety measures,
is one aspect, issuing directions for providing one job of
luskur post to each of the family is entirely different. This
Court cannot show such indulgence for issuance of any
JAK, J
direction for a job, children were minors, and the loss of
dependency is one of the criteria that is usually considered.
Parents are not dependents on minors.
18. Reliance placed on G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 06.03.2014, is
misconceived. As per the said G.O., the amounts are to be
paid in case of accidental death in a family w.e.f.
02.11.2013. In the present case, the deaths of children
occurred on 23.01.2011.
19. Be that as it may, the contents of clause 13 of
G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 06.03.2014, are as follows:
"People, who die due to drowning, also are covered
under "Apathbandu" scheme, as it is an accidental
death."
20. As per clause 13 of the G.O., people, who die due to
drowning, are sanctioned an amount of Rs.50,000/- within
seven days from the date of death. In the present case, the
death of three children, aged around eight (8) years,
occurred due to accidental slip and fell from the sluices
into the Kinnerasani Project. It is not in dispute that no
precautionary measures were found in place. Petitioners
requested for an ex-gratia amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as
JAK, J
early as on 05.02.2011 i.e., within a period of two weeks.
This Court is of the opinion that an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- be paid to each of the petitioners, subject to
condition that if any amounts have been paid earlier, the
same shall be considered while arriving at the total amount
of Rs.2,00,000/-.
21. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the
Executive Engineer, I&CAD, Irrigation Department,
respondent No.5, before the Chairman, Mandal Legal
Services Authority (at paragraph No.4, page No.25 of the
documents annexed) that an amount of Rs.75,000/- each
has been received by the family members of three children.
The amounts already paid shall be given credit i.e., those
amounts paid shall be deducted from Rs.2,00,000/- to
arrive at the balance to be paid.
22. The respondent authorities shall pay the said amount
within a period of eight (8) weeks. It is made clear that no
interest shall be paid on the amount arrived at. The office
of Collector shall coordinate with other offices and arrive at
the figure after giving due credit to the amounts received by
JAK, J
the deceased families. Even though it is contended that
Rs.75,000/- has been paid by the contractor, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the same shall be taken into
account including any other amounts, if paid, the
remaining amount shall be paid through the office of
Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem.
23. With the above observations, the writ petition is
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date:24.11.2025
KH
