Disposed

Gurram Padmavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Nov 2019WP/17422/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the second respondent to dispose of a pending representation regarding land compensation. The court held that denial of compensation due to missing title documents is illegal when title disputes require a specific procedure under the Land Acquisition Act.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation dated 28.05.2019 for disposal; consequently, miscellaneous petitions to be closed.

Gurram Padmavathi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.17422 OF 2019

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to declare the action of the second respondent in not paying compensation to the petitioner and her children in respect of Ac.5-00 cents in Sy.No.387-1-1 and Sy.No.387-1-3 of Vendodu Village, Guduru Mandal, SPSR Nellore, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation forthwith.

¶4

The petitioner and her children are the owners of the land acquired by the government, but no compensation has been paid on the ground that these petitioners did not produce the D-Form Patta and pattadar passbook issued in their favour. But, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that, the land was assigned to them by the government issuing D-Form Patta and later, a certificate was obtained from the Tahsildar, Gudur Mandal, Nellore District, certifying that the assignment in favour of Gurram Radha Krishna assigning an extent of Ac.3-46 cents in Sy.No.387-1-1 and Ac.1-54 cents in Sy.No.387-1-3 of Vendodu Village, Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore is genuine. But, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition did not dispute the genuineness of the certificate and competency of the Tahsildar to issue such certificate.

¶5

Besides those documents, the petitioner also produced several documents i.e. adangals for different faslis to show that the

¶6

Gurram Radha Krishna is the beneficiary of the assignment and thereby, he is entitled to claim compensation. But, on the ground that this petitioner did not produce pattadar passbook and D-Form Pattta, the Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department cannot deny payment of compensation and if, there is any dispute with regard to the title, a separate procedure is prescribed under The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘Land Acquisition Act’), for deposit of the amount before appropriate authority, instead of following the procedure prescribed under Land Acquisition Act, the respondents denied payment of compensation and such action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary.

¶7

The petitioner also submitted a representation to the second respondent on 28.05.2019 and it is pending for consideration. Hence, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation dated 28.05.2019, in accordance with law.

¶8

With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of.

¶9

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶10

Date: 13.11.2019 sp

¶11

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Gurram Padmavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurram Padmavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Avulaiah alias Babu Vs the State of Ap

K. Chandrasekhar Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Chandra Sekhar, Vs The Tahsildar

Smt. K.Venkata Lakshmamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Anjali Charitable Trust, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Ghousia Begum, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh