Dismissed

Ravula Veeriah, died by his Lr v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC8 Jun 2009WA/67/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the appellant challenged the dismissal of a writ petition seeking a declaration that the respondents' inaction in passing an award for land acquisition was illegal. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the disputed question of fact regarding the gift deed could not be decided in this forum.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ravula Veeriah, died by his Lr Vs The Government of… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NO : 67 of 2002

¶6

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 3431 OF 1991 on the file of the High Court.)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ravula Veeriah, died by his LR Ravula Chiranjeeva Chary, S/o Venkataramaiah, R/o Nustalapur Village, Karimnagar District.

¶9

..... APPELLANT

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The District Collector, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar.

¶13

3 The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Unit II, Karimnagar.

¶14

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant:MR.M.RAJAMALLA REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶17

The Court made the following:

¶18

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶19

WRIT APPEAL NO.67 OF 2002

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari)

¶21

The present writ appeal is filed questioning the order dated 15.11.2002 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.3431 of 1991. The writ petitioner is the appellant herein and he sought a direction to declare the inaction of the respondents in passing an Award in respect of the House No. 1- 61, Project No.33 of Nustulapur Village, Karimnagar, District, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently sought a direction to the respondents to pass an Award under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the said House.

¶22

It is the case of the appellant that on 09.12.1975, one Gajula Bhoomiah, owner of the property viz. House bearing No.1-61, Project No.33, situated at Nustulapur Village, Karimnagar District, had gifted the said property in his favour to construct Veera Brahmendra Swamy Temple in that place and that the name of the appellant was mutated in the revenue records in the year 1976 itself. It is his further case that he is paying house tax and that the then Gram Panchayat also gratned permission in the year 1981 for the construction of a temple in the place and that the said Gajula Bhoomiah, the donor, died on 19.09.1979. While so, it is stated that in the year 1983, land acquisition proceedings were initiated in Nustulapur Village for lower Maneru dam. However, no compensation whatsoever was paid to the appellant in respect of the property in question. Challenging the said action, the writ petition was filed.

¶23

The learned single Judge after having heard both sides, held inter alia that the alleged gift of house property was in favour of the temple represented by its Committee and that it was not in favour of the appellant. Eventually, the writ petition was dismissed.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶25

We have perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the appellant produced before us a xerox copy of the alleged gift deed dated 09.12.1975. A bare perusal of the said gift deed shows that it was made only in favour of the temple represented by its Committee but not in favour of the appellant. However, the case of the appellant is that the deceased donor, namely, Gajula Bhoomiah, gifted the property in question in his favour. This disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in this appeal and if the appellant is so advised, he can invoke the jurisdiction of the appropriate forum to adjudicate his rights, if any. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge which is valid and legal.

¶26

The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, we make it clear that this order will not preclude the respondents from passing an award in respect of the property in question in accordance with law, if not already passed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

______________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J

¶28

____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶29

3^rd June, 2009. VGSR

Ravula Veeriah, died by his Lr v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ravula Veeriah, died by his Lr v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kail Glady Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kaushik Gummuluri, S/o G.a.v.Ramana Murthy,Ssc, Vs The Director of Government Examinations (Ssc)

B.Haranadha Naidu Vs The District Collector, Nellore, Nellore sistrict.

B.Kameswara Rao Vs The Chairman

Smt. v.Vijaya Saidulu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mandali Sri Rama Murthy Vs The District Collector, West Godavari District