Allowed

D.Venkataparatnam v. Prl.Secy., Revenue Dept.,Hyd., and 3 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Dec 2022WP/36890/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge order dismissing a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking relief for non-payment of land acquisition compensation. The court directed the respondents to pay compensation as per a specific government order within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay compensation as per G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993 for 5 cents of land along with 6% interest within 2 weeks.

D.Venkataparatnam Vs Prl.Secy., Revenue Dept.,Hyd… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

Writ Petition No.36890 of 2015

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

¶5

“... to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents herein in not paying compensation and exgratia as per G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23/12/1993, as bad, illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the Respondents to pay compensation to the Petitioner herein for the land in an extent of Ac. 5.00 cents situated in Sy.No.25/3 of Jagannadhapuram, Paravada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in the interest of justice and pass. ..”

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner

¶7

was granted DKT Patta to an extent of Acs.5.00 cents on 12.11.1975 and since then, he has been in possession of the said land. Thereafter, the said land was acquired by the A.P.I.I.C. authorities under Land Acquisition Act and an

¶8

¶9

award No.4/92, dated 25.05.1992 was passed and incorporated vide 8A/5/1402, dated 18.l1.1992. In pursuance of the said orders, the said land was classified as Government Land and the petitioner was not paid any compensation, hence he filed W.P. No.2514 of 1998 which was allowed by this Court by directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the claim of the petitioners for compensation as set out in the Lawyer’s Notice, dated 01.11.1997, in respect of Ac.5.00 cents of land in Sy. No.25/1(p) of Jagannadhapuram, Parvada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶10

The main grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.2514 of 1998, the respondents have failed to pay any compensation, though the petitioner has made several representations. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶11

¶12

On perusal of the material available on record,

¶13

instead of going into the merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay compensation to the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993, for the land in an extent of Acs.5.00 cents situated in Sy. No.25/3 of Jagannadhapuram, Parvada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as expeditiously possible, preferably within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of acquisition.

¶14

Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ

¶15

petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

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

¶17

_______________ V. SUJATHA, J

¶18

ASH

¶19

Date: 13.12.2022

D.Venkataparatnam v. Prl.Secy., Revenue Dept.,Hyd., and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Venkataparatnam v. Prl.Secy., Revenue Dept.,Hyd., and 3 Others

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

B.Narayana Rao, Vs The State of Andha Paradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Kamalapuri Vishwarupaachari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary

Peddada Mangaraju, S/o.Late P.Venkata Ramana, Vs .The State of Andhra Pradesh

Managing Committee Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,Revenue,Hyd,and 8

Kopanathi Venkata Rama Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal

Karnati Sayamma W/o. Venkatareddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its