Allowed

Chukka Lakshmi Devi, v. The Special Deputy Collector (L.a.), Telugu Ganga Project

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Nov 2022LAAS/929/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two appeals challenging orders dismissing land oblation petitions under the Land Acquisition Act were disposed of. The Court set aside the impugned orders as the lower court failed to act on a prior remand order. The matter was remanded to the Senior Civil Judge with strict time limits for disposal.

What did the court decide?

The orders dismissing the land oblation petitions were set aside; matter remanded to Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet for disposal within three months.

Chukka Lakshmi Devi, Vs The Special Deputy Collector… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

¶4

L.A.A.S.No.929 of 2007

¶5

AND

¶6

L.A.A.S.No.930 of 2007

¶7

COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)

¶8

Heard Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for

¶9

the appellants and learned Government Pleader for Appeals, for the respondent and perused the record.

¶10

As both the appeals are interconnected, the same are disposed of by this following common judgment.

¶11

Against the Award, dated 14.01.1998 passed in A.No.3/97-98, the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore at Rajampet filed L.A.O.P.No.38 of 2000 under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against one Chukka Lakshmi Devi and Six others. The said O.P. was disposed on 17.04.2002. Against which, the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore at Rajampet preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.1980 of 2004 before the High Court against Chukka Lakshmi

¶12

¶13

CPK, J & BVLNC, J L.A.A.S.Nos.929 & 930 of 2007

¶14

and Six others. Likewise, L.A.O.P.No.24 of 2000 was filed under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore at Rajampet against one Guvvala Nadipi Yellaiah and Four others, which was also disposed on 17.04.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore at Rajampet preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.2208 of 2004 before the High Court against Guvvala Nadipi Yellaiah and Four others.

¶15

By an Order, dated 23.02.2005, A.S.No.1980 of 2004 and A.S.No.2208 of 2004 were disposed of by this Court setting aside the decree of the Lower Court and remanded the matter back to the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet to restore the O.P. to its original number in the register and proceed to dispose of the same in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made in the said judgment, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶16

At this stage, it is also to be noted that the claimants,

¶17

who are the appellants herein preferred L.A.A.S.Nos.929

¶18

¶19

CPK, J & BVLNC, J L.A.A.S.Nos.929 & 930 of 2007

¶20

and 930 of 2007 before this Court, which are pending. When these matters came up for hearing before another Division Bench, a report was called for as to the status of the O.Ps. pursuant to the remand order passed by this Court in A.S.Nos.1980 and 2208 of 2004. A report came to be submitted by the Principal District Judge, Kadapa and also by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet. The operative portion of the report dated 04.11.2022 submitted by Principal District judge, Kadapa, is as under:-

¶21

“Without disowning my responsibility as Unit Head, I humbly submit that the O.P. Cell of District Court, Kadapa without placing the order of Hon’ble High Court in reference 1^st cited before me, routinely channelized the information from Senior Civil Judge, Rajampeta and got submitted to Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide reference 2^nd and 3^rd cited, representing to me that it only relates to status of L.A.O.P.No.38 of 2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court at Rajampeta. Further, I respectfully submit that there was no specific direction to me as per Order in reference 1^st cited in getting information from Senior Civil Judge, Rajampeta and due to those reasons and due to some inadvertence, I could not notice the dearth of information furnished by the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampeta as directed in the order in reference 1^st cited, I humbly submit that it was not

¶22

¶23

CPK, J & BVLNC, J L.A.A.S.Nos.929 & 930 of 2007

¶24

intentional nor due to any wilful negligence on my part, and I undertake not to repeat the same in future and will be more diligent hereafter.”

¶25

The report dated 29.10.2022 submitted by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, is as under:-

¶26

“In this regard, I may be permitted to submit the following facts as to the L.A.O.P.No.24 and 38/2000 for favour of consideration:

¶27

(i) L.A.O.P.Nos:38 and 24/2000 on the file of this Court, were disposed of on 17.04.2002.

¶28

(ii) On the earlier occasion, challenging the order, dated 17.04.2002 in L.A.O.P.Nos:38 and 24/2000 passed by this Court, A.S.Nos.2208 and 1980/2004 were filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶29

(iii) Once again, challenging one and the same order dated 17.04.2002 in L.A.O.P.Nos:38 and 24/2000 passed by this Court, the present L.A.A.S.No:929/2007 (corresponding L.A.O.P. No:38/2000) and L.A.A.S.No:930/2007 (corresponding L.A.No.24/2000) were preferred before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶30

(iv) I humbly submit my Lord neither the parties nor the learned Advocate on record represent the matter before this Court after assuming of charge by me before this Court.”

¶31

¶32

CPK, J & BVLNC, J L.A.A.S.Nos.929 & 930 of 2007

¶33

From a reading of the above, it is clear that the records relating to L.A.O.P.No.38 of 2000 were sent to the High Court while the record relating to L.A.O.P.No.24 of 2000 is available in the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Rajampet. Though, the records are available, the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet never took any steps for disposal as per the direction of this Court.

¶34

Be that as it may, having regard to the orders passed in the two Appeal Suits referred to above, the order under challenge is also set aside and the matters are remanded back to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet with a direction to the Registrar (Judicial) to send the original records forthwith to the said Court, in which event, the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet shall dispose of both the cases within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of the records. It is made clear that if the records are not received within a period of three (03) weeks from today, the Principal District Judge, Kadapa shall take necessary steps with the Registry of the High Court in seeking the records and see that they are sent to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet,

¶35

¶36

CPK, J & BVLNC, J L.A.A.S.Nos.929 & 930 of 2007

¶37

forthwith. It is needless to mention that the learned counsel appearing before the Lower Court shall cooperate with the Court for disposal of the two cases within the time fixed.

¶38

With the above directions, both the appeals are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶40

shall stand closed.

¶41

_______________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶42

____________________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

¶43

Date: 07.11.2022

¶44

Note: Copy of the judgment be placed before the Registrar (Judicial), for taking necessary steps. B/o.MS

¶45

¶46

CPK, J & BVLNC, J L.A.A.S.Nos.929 & 930 of 2007

¶47

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶48

AND

¶49

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

¶50

L.A.A.S.Nos.929 & 930 of 2007

¶51

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)

¶52

DATE: 07.11.2022

¶53

Chukka Lakshmi Devi, v. The Special Deputy Collector (L.a.), Telugu Ganga Project

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chukka Lakshmi Devi, v. The Special Deputy Collector (L.a.), Telugu Ganga Project

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

Somadula Venkatesh at Venkat, E.G.Dist. Vs Thimmapuram P.S.

Chimata Nagaraju, Guntur Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd

Vantaku Koteswara Rao, Visakhapatnam and Ano Vs P.P., Hyd

Kadiyam Chiranjeevi, Chimakurthy., Vs State of Ap., Rep Pp.

.Shiv Charan Singh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Guvvala Nadipi Yellaiah, Vs The Special Deputy Collector (L.a.), Telugu Ganga Project