Dismissed

Gajula Venkata Satya Narayana and Anr. v. Dist Collector Wg Dist and 2 Ors.

Telangana HC17 Mar 2011WP/7189/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the refusal to pay compensation for allegedly acquired land in excess of notified area via writ petition. The court held land acquisition disputes regarding measurement and extent require civil court reference, barring writ intervention which was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for issuance of writ of Mandamus declaring the acquisition of excess land illegal and directing payment of additional compensation dismissed.

Gajula Venkata Satya Narayana and Anr. Vs Dist Collector… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.7189 of 2003

¶3

Date of Order:17.03.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

Rajula Venkata Satyanarayana and another ..Petitioners and The District Collector and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.7189 of 2003

¶8

ORDER :-

¶9

By means of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,

¶10

the petitioners seeks issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the compensation for the land to an extent of Acs.0-23 cents in R.S.No.414 of Palakol village, which was taken possession for the purpose of laying bye pass road and the inaction on the part of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not implementing the directions of respondent No.1 in R.C.No.H2/876/2002, dated 27.05.2002, as illegal and direct the respondents to pay the compensation for the lands acquired by following due process of law.

¶11

It is not in dispute that on a requisition made by the Executive Engineer (R&B), Bhimavaram for acquisition of land to an extent of Acs.11-51 cents, covered by R.S.No.378/2B etc., of Palakol Town an extent of Acs.11-44 cents was only notified to be acquired under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of construction of Railway Over Bridge in lieu of the existing level crossing No.23.

¶12

According to the petitioner, the petitioner’s father is owner of various extents of land to an extent of Acs.1-28 cents in R.S.No.414/1, Acs.1-14 cents in R.S.No.414/2, Acs.1-08 cents in R.S.No.414/3 and Acs.1-08 cents in R.S.No.414/4 of Palakol village. In all measuring an extent of Acs.4-58 cents. Out of the said extent, an extent of Acs.2-89 cents viz., an extent of Ac.0-57 cents in R.S.No.414/1, Ac.0-85 cents in R.S.No.414/2, Acs.0-83 cents in R.S.No.414/3 and Ac.0-64 cents in R.S.No.414/4 was acquired by the Government for the purpose of laying a bye-pass road by connecting Narsapur-Palakol road. On issuing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 23.09.1994 and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 24.10.1994, the possession of the land was taken on 25.04.1995. An award was passed fixing the compensation at Rs.6,38,955/- in favour of the petitioner’s father over an extent of Acs.2-89 cents in award No.3/96-97, dated 10.12.1996. The petitioners claims that out of the remaining extent of Acs.1-69 cents, during the life time of their father, they have sold an extent of Ac.1-00 to one D.S.Gangadhar under a registered sale deed. It is further submitted that in the month of April, 2002 when the vendee requested to get the land measured, the petitioners with the help of the local Surveyor got measured the land and it was found that an extent of Ac.0-77 cents of land was available in stead of Ac.1-00 of land, which was sold to Gangadhar. The

¶13

petitioners came to know that the Government has acquired more land than mentioned in the notification and made a representation to the District Collector for payment of the compensation which was forwarded by the Collector-3^rd respondent for necessary action, but so far no action is taken. Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

¶14

In the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated about the issuance of the notification and passing of the award for Acs.2-89 cents. But at no point of time, the petitioner’s father raised any objection during the award proceedings about acquisition of more land by the Government than notified. The remaining extent of Acs.1-69 cents in the said survey number is a private land. The representation filed by the petitioner to the District Collector, dated 10.05.2002, was forwarded. After getting the survey of the land, it was found that the land was not occupied by the respondents for laying the bye pass road as contended by the petitioners and no part of the land was taken possession as alleged by the petitioner. Further, the award proceedings have become final between the Collector and the persons interested in respect of the true area of the land and the value of the land. If the person interested has got any grievance, he has to seek reference to civil court even if there is any dispute with regard to measurement of the land. Hence, there is no dispute at any point of time and the same cannot be entertained at this length of time.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to substantiate as to how the respondents acquired more extents of the land than notified. Once the acquisition proceedings have become final on passing the award, the persons interested in the land disputes the true area acquired, if any, has to seek a reference of the matter, disputing the correctness of the measurements. When it is asserted by the petitioners that more extents of the land is acquired by the Government and it is denied by the respondents about acquisition of more extent of the land than covered by the award, the dispute, if any, has to be decided by civil court on reference under Section 18 of the Act or in a properly constituted civil suit, by leading evidence. The said dispute cannot be a subject matter of enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶16

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to

¶17

costs.

¶18

____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J March 17, 2011 Lmv

Gajula Venkata Satya Narayana and Anr. v. Dist Collector Wg Dist and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajula Venkata Satya Narayana and Anr. v. Dist Collector Wg Dist and 2 Ors.

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

M.K.Rajagopal, Vs The District Collector

Sunkara Raja Gopala Rao, Vs Sunkara Lakshmamma

Gollapudi Krishnaji Rao, Vs Potluri Ramakrishna Rao

Sardar Trilok Singh Pishoriya Vs Dist.Collector Rr Dist. and 4 Ors.

R.S. Singh and 167 Ors. Vs M.R.O. Medak Dist. and 4 Ors.

K. Rajeshwar, Vs The District Collector