Disposed

Chebolu Suryanarayana Murthy. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC16 Sept 2010WP/2261/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Court directed the respondent government to initiate land acquisition proceedings and pay compensation for land already taken possession for drainage widening without following the statutory procedure.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents 1 and 4 to initiate land acquisition proceedings and pay compensation within three months.

Chebolu Suryanarayana Murthy. Vs Government of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶2

W.P.No. 2261 of 2005

¶3

Date: 16-09-2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

Chebolu Suryanarayana Murthy and others

¶6

……….. Petitioners

¶7

and

¶8

Government of Andhra pradesh and others.

¶9

………. Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶11

W.P.No. 2261 of 2005

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay compensation amount to the petitioners, as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), since their land admeasuring 0.96 cents in Survey Nos.268/1 and 268/7 of Sanapalli Lanka Village, Inavilli Mandal, East Godavari District, was acquired for the purpose of widening the drainage without paying any compensation, and for all consequential benefits.

¶14

It appears, the land of the petitioners to an extent of 0.96 cents in Survey Nos.268/1 and 268/7 of Sanapalli Lanka Village, Inavilli Mandal, East Godavari District, was taken possession for widening the drainage under “Vrudha Gowthami Drain Scheme” in the C.E.R.P. works and the acquisition was made without following the procedure under the Act. The matter was reported in the newspapers on 30-03-1994. Without initiating the land acquisition proceedings under the Act and without payment of compensation, the lands of the petitioners were taken possession. Some of the neighbouring land owners have filed W.P.No.14622 of 1994 before this Court and on disposal of the said writ petition, they were awarded compensation amount, which is not less than Rs.2 lakhs per acre. However, the petitioners have not filed any writ petition and when they made a representation to the respondents, they have not

¶15

responded.

¶16

The compensation cannot be paid in respect of some of the land owners and left the others out, which is arbitrary and illegal.

¶17

There is no necessity of going into all the details. In the counter filed by the respondents, at para-4, it is stated that the matter was got verified with the office records as to whether there are any land acquisition proceedings pending pertaining to the land of the petitioners. After verifying the records, it is found that no requisition was received from the drainage department for acquisition of land belonging to the petitioners and no amount was placed

¶18

before the Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, so far. However, instructions were issued to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Inavilli to get the lands inspected and to expedite his report on acquisition of lands by the drainage department. Accordingly, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ainavilli got the land surveyed by the Mandal Deputy Surveyor, Ainavilli and reported that an extent of Ac.1-08 cts belonging to the petitioners was involved in the drain and the petitioners have raised coconut trees on either side of the bank and enjoying the usufructs. It is further stated that it is true that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the said land, however they have never urged for payment of compensation for the lands, at any point of time, so that the Land Acquisition Officer can get the matters enquired, and approached the Court leisurely.

¶19

In view of the above, may be there was some urgency and the land of the petitioners was taken possession for the purpose of constructing drainage, but that does not mean that the respondents could have denied the petitioners their legitimate right to get the compensation under the law.

¶20

Under these circumstances, the respondents 1 and 4 are directed to approach respondents 2 and 3 for the purpose of initiating land acquisition proceedings against the land of the petitioners to an extent of 0.96 cents in Survey Nos.268/1 and 268/7 of Sanapalli Lanka Village, Inavilli Mandal, East Godavari District, and complete the entire process as per the

¶21

provisions of the Act, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶22

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶23

____________ C.V. RAMULU, J

¶24

Date: 16-09-2010 YCR

Chebolu Suryanarayana Murthy. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chebolu Suryanarayana Murthy. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

T.Sreedevi Vs Ravula Dasaradha Ramaiah Gowd

Gutta Kowsalendra Rao Vs The Superintendent of Police

K.Madhavasen Gupta Vs v Usha Rani , The District Collector

Suthari Veeraswamy S/o Laxminarasiah Vs Special Officer and competent Authority, Urban Land

Chingarupati Vijayamba, Vs the Sub-Collector-cum-Lands Reforms Tribunal

M.C.Bayapa Redddy Vs The District Collector