Sesham Venkata Rao Vs Union of India

SESHAM VENKATA RAO, PEDDA KANAKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCTEACHER, R/O D.NO. 3-40, ARUNDHATINAGAR, KANCHIKACHERLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

UNION OF INDIA, REP BY SECRETARY, NATIONAL HIGH WAY DEPARTMENT NEW DELHI.

¶14

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING (ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS) NEW DELHI.

¶15

THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP BY PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO.9,

¶16

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR AND GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, VIJAVWADA, PLOT NO,21, TEACHERS COLONY, GURUNANAK ROAD, VIJAYAWADA.

¶17

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, LAND ACQUISITION MANAGER-II, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, VIJAYAWADA, PLOT NO.21, TEACHERS COLONY, GURUNANAK ROAD, VIJAYAWADA.

¶18

THE ARBITRATOR AND THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT CHILAKALAPURI

¶19

2

¶20

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, , VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR, KANCHIKACHERLA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying interest and solatium in view of ratio laid down in Taramsingh Vs Union of India as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the award and be pleased to pass

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to pay the interest and solatium to the petitioner forthwith in view of ratio laid down in "Taramsingh Vs Union of India", pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner to file Counter in W.P. No. 733 of 2022 and pass

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶29

1.SATHEESH KUMAR EERLA

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

1.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶32

2.DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶33

3.MUDUNURI ANAND KUMAR (SC FOR NHAI)

¶34

3

¶35

The Court made the following Order:

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶37

This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the respondents in not paying interest and solatium in view of the ratio laid down in “Taramsingh v. Union of India”.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed this writ petition aggrieved by the proceedings of the Arbitrator and the District Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna District dated 03.07.2006 wherein the suitable compensation was not fixed for the Teak trees.

¶39

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel relying upon the counter of the 4^th respondent submits that CALA vide Award No.3/2003, dated 04.04.2003 awarded compensation to the petitioner’s property (in Sy.No.36/1 & 36/2) vide apportionment Sl.No.25 and 26 which includes values to the trees and allowed 30% solatium and 12% additional solatium as per the National Highways Act, 1956. There was no violation of principles of natural justice while conducting arbitration proceedings. After hearing both sides, the Arbitrator clearly mentioned the petitioner’s contentions and respondent’s replies. The petitioner has got efficacious alternative remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration

¶40

4

¶41

and Conciliation Act, 1996. To avoid the limitation proceedings, this writ petition is filed. Ample opportunity was given and the petitioner was heard and their contentions were recorded. The petitioner filed the earlier writ petition No.16727 of 2015 which was disposed of as not pressed with a liberty as prayed vide order dated 23.06.2015 which is as under:

¶42

“Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this writ petition and seeks liberty to the petitioner to file proceedings before the appropriate forum challenging the Award, dated 03.07.2006 passed by the 6^th respondent….

¶43

Writ petition is disposed of as not pressed with liberty as prayed. Challenge to the above provision is kept open to be raised in appropriate proceedings.”

¶44

In view of the same, the petitioner ought to have availed the remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶45

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to avail the alternative remedy as per Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to raise all the grounds challenging the award dated 04.04.2003 even in respect of awarding any suitable compensation for the Teak trees as contended by the petitioner. The time taken for pendency of this writ petition No.773 of 2022 shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation if any, in accordance with law.

¶46

5

¶47

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no

¶48

order as to costs.

¶49

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶50

_________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 03.09.2025 NNN

Sesham Venkata Rao v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sesham Venkata Rao v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gogulamanda Venkata Narasamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Athipatla Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tammina Raghuramudu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Nambula Ravanamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chadalavada Padma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gundluri Munikumaramma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh