Remanded

G.Sreenivasulu Raghavaiah v. The Special Collector

Telangana HC2 Jul 2009WP/21011/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandamus to award interest on land compensation from the date of notification. Relying on precedents, the court set aside the impugned order to grant interest and statutory benefits as per the underlying civil decree.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order to the extent of interest awarded; petitioner entitled to interest and statutory benefits per underlying decree.

G.Sreenivasulu Raghavaiah Vs The Special Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 21011 of 2008

¶5

Between:

¶6

G.Sreenivasulu Raghavaiah S/o.Chinna Subbaiah R/o. Sainagar Village, Upparpalli Panchayat, Madhavaram Post, Sidhavatam Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The Special Collector, Galarunagari Sujala Shravanthi Project, Kadapa, Kadapa District.

¶10

2 The Special Depty Collector, Unit-IV, Somasila Project, Rajampet, Kadapa District.

¶11

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to award interest on the market value, solatium and additional market value from the date of 4(1) Notification i.e., 22.2.1995 to date of realization instead of from the date of 28-A application i.e., 10.4.2006 on par with the Judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, dt. 25.2.2006 in O.P.No.223 of 1999 and batch and pay the same to the petitioner herein in pursuance of his application filed U/Sec. 28-A dated 10.04.2006 and pass such other order or orders.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAJENDRA BUSSA

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶15

The Court made the following :

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶17

W.P. No. 21011 of 2008

¶18

O R D E R:

¶19

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents to award interest on the market value, solatium and additional market value from the date of 4(1) Notification i.e. 22.2.1995 to the date of realization instead of the date of the application made under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. 10.4.2006 on par with the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District dated 25.2.2006 in O.P. No. 223 of 1999 and batch and pay the same to the petitioner herein in pursuance of his application under Section 28-A of the Act dated 10.4.2006.

¶20

There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to observe that this Court, dealing with similar matters in W.P. No. 2183 of 2003 dated 21.7.2008 and W.P. No. 13241 of 2008, set aside the impugned orders to the extent of awarding the interest and denying the other statutory benefits and held that the petitioners therein shall be entitled to interest and all other statutory benefits in terms of the award passed by the reference Court.

¶21

In the circumstances, following the orders in W.P. No.2183 of 2003 dated 21.7.2008 and W.P. No. 13241 of 2008 dated 2.7.2008, the impugned order dated 16.2.2008 is set aside to the extent of interest awarded, holding that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest and all other statutory benefits in terms of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District in O.P. No. 223 of 1999 dated 25.2.2006.

¶22

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶23

JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU.

¶24

Date: 02-7-2009. MVB.

G.Sreenivasulu Raghavaiah v. The Special Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sreenivasulu Raghavaiah v. The Special Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Polgani Rama Mohana Rao, Vs the Distirict Collecter

M. Pratap Reddy Vs The District of Mines and Geology

Pudari Shanker, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

B.Rajeswara Rao, Vs a.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

Chodapalli Gram Panchayat, rep by its Sarpanch, Vs The Panchayat Development Officer

Khader Hussain Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer