Allowed

Eerni Satyanarayana v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Telangana HC13 Jun 2006WP/14258/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order directs the second respondent to accept the balance amount payable by the petitioner with interest at 12% per annum within eight weeks, treating his case similarly to earlier batch cases despite belated approach, which was due to a pending writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to accept the balance amount payable by the petitioner with interest at 12% per annum within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of this order.

Eerni Satyanarayana Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.CH.SURYA RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

W.P.NO.14258 OF 2000

¶3

O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Ch.Surya Rao)

¶4

In identical matters covered by W.P.Nos.33854 of 1997

¶5

and batch preferred assailing the orders passed in L.G.C.Nos.15, 60 of 1989 and other L.G.Cs, this court while disposing of the writ petitions directed at the end in the interest of justice that the respondents shall accept the balance amount payable by the persons who are found to be in occupation of the lands belonging to the Government with interest at 12 per cent per annum within eight weeks from the date thereof.

¶6

2. By the date of disposal of the said writ petitions on 15.06.2000, the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner was pending and was not disposed of along with the said batch. It seems after the disposal of the batch of writ petitions, the petitioner too approached the Special Court and sought to pay the balance amount with interest. But by then it was beyond the stipulated period fixed inter alia in the writ petition. It appears that the Special Court refused to accept the same

¶7

when sought to be paid by the petitioner on that ground.

¶8

3. Having regard to the fact that the case of the petitioner is similarly placed and is in no manner different with that of the other persons, whose encroachments have been regularized, ends of justice would require his case too shall be considered in a similar manner.

¶9

4. The learned Government Pleader for Assignment, represents on instructions, that as many as 258 conveyance deeds have already been executed pursuant to the orders passed by this court in the batch of writ petitions and there remains 218 cases still where the conveyance deeds are to be executed insofar as the respondents in L.G.C.No.58/1989 are concerned. This further buttresses the case of the petitioner. The only point that goes against the petitioner is that he approached the court belatedly. That cannot be the consideration, because his writ petition was pending by then and he approached the court not pursuant to the orders passed in his writ petition, but in a different writ petition. In this view of the matter, while disposing of the instant writ petition, we direct 2^nd respondent to accept the balance amount payable by the petitioner with interest at 12 per cent per annum within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10

5. No order as to costs.

¶11

---------------------------------T.CH.SURYA RAO,J

¶12

---------------------------------G.CHANDRAIAH,J AVS DATE:13.06.2006

Eerni Satyanarayana v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eerni Satyanarayana v. Revenue Divisional Officer

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

P.Rajandra Prasad Vs Special Court for Cases

Mohd.Qutubuddin Khan Soofi and Another Vs Reistrar Spl Court Constituted Under Ap

Ratan Singh Vs Smt.Janaki Bai

Kommara Yellayya Vs The Andhra University

B. Mohan Redy Vs The Special Court under a. P. Land Grabbing (prohibition)

N. Venka Reddy, Vs The Special Court Under The a.P.Land Grabbing