Allowed

Pappla Dali Naidu, v. Land Acquisition Officer --Cum-- Revenue Divisional Officer.

Telangana HC10 Feb 2011WP/13567/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed regarding the non-mandatory reference of the land acquisition award to the civil court. This court held that the respondent's delay in acting on the petitioners' application for a reference constituted sufficient ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to make a reference to the civil court, if not already made, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pappla Dali Naidu, Vs Land Acquisition Officer --Cum… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.13567 OF 2003

¶3

Date:10.02.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

Pappala Dali Naidu and others .. Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

Land Acquisition Officer-cumRevenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District .. Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.13567 OF 2003

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

The land admeasuring Ac.0.25 cents in Survey No.81/34-B and Ac.0.26 cents in Survey No.81/35-A belonging to the first petitioner, Ac.0.43 cents in Survey No.81/26-B and Ac.0.03 cents in survey No.81/36-A belonging to the second petitioner and Ac.0.17 cents in Survey No.78/21-A belonging to the third petitioner was acquired for formation of approach road to new Nagavalli bridge. The award was passed on 31.05.1999. The petitioners allege that the father of the first petitioner Appa Rao participated in the award enquiry. The notice of award was issued on 14.06.1999 and the compensation was paid on 22.06.1999. They further allege that immediately after receiving notices, they filed applications seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity). However, the compensation was paid on 22.06.1999, and the petitioners received the same under protest. As reference was not made, they filed the instant writ petition.

¶12

The Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition) has placed before this Court the applications filed by the petitioners separately seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. The third petitioner made such application on 16.06.1999 and petitioners 1 and 2 made applications on 27.07.1999. All these are within the period of two months from the date of service of notice under Section 22 of the Act. Therefore, the inaction on the part of the respondent is certainly a reason for interference in the writ petition.

¶13

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondent to make a reference to the civil Court, if not already made, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J)

¶15

10.02.2011 KH

Pappla Dali Naidu, v. Land Acquisition Officer --Cum-- Revenue Divisional Officer.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappla Dali Naidu, v. Land Acquisition Officer --Cum-- 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

Smt.Meharunnisa Begum, Vs The District Collector

T. Innaiah S/o Chennaiah Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by Principal

M. Prabhakar Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dudekula Dastagiri Vs The Specila deputy Collector

Smt.Amtul Hafeez Begum, Vs The Special Deputy Collector

Mrs.Gopisetty Sanyasamma w/o.Venkanna, Vs The District Collector,Vizianagaram