Allowed

M.C. Pakeeraiah, v. The State of A.P. ]

Telangana HC24 Feb 2011WP/8113/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning land acquisition compensation for the Srisailam Hydro Electric Project, the Court directed the respondent government to release pending compensation amounts to petitioners immediately and issue cheques within three months pursuant to relevant Government Orders.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to release compensation amounts immediately and to the second respondent to issue cheques within three months.

M.C. Pakeeraiah, Vs The State of A.P. ] — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.8113 OF 2004

¶3

Date:24.02.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

M.C.Pakkeraiah and others .. Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented By its Secretary, Irrigation and CAD, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad And another .. Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.8113 OF 2004

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

The petitioners, who are 38 in number, filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay compensation for the lands as per the award Nos.7/66, 3/66 24/76, 30/76, 1/77 of Palamarri Village, 37/78, 38/78, 9/75, 11/75 of Beeravolu Village and 26/80, 19/76, 26/79, 62/78 of Pratakota Village and 48/76 of Ganapuram Village, Pagidala Mandal, Kurnool District in accordance with the directions of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms.No.234, Irrigation and CAD (I-Wing, T&M-II) Department, dated 15.10.1993.

¶12

It is the case of the petitioners that all of them are owners of the lands in various survey numbers and that their lands were acquired for the purpose of Srisailam Hydro Electric Project. They stated that as they were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, they sought reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity). As no appeals were preferred by the petitioners, the amount of compensation awarded by the civil Court became final. They further stated that though the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.234 for speedy payment of compensation and settlement of the land acquisition cases, and the same was applied in the other number of ryots, the same was denied to the petitioners.

¶13

This Court heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition).

¶14

The question raised in this writ petition is covered by the judgment delivered by me in W.P.No.16980 of 2001 and batch dated 18.03.2002 as well as in W.P.No.17404 of 2001 dated 05.04.2001. Following the same, this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction.

¶15

The first respondent shall release the amounts payable to the petitioners in this writ petition immediately, if the amounts were not already paid, if necessary, by taking recourse to Rule

¶16

34-A of the Andhra Pradesh Business Rules made by the Government of India in exercise of the power under Clauses (2) and (3) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. As and when the said amounts are released, the second respondent shall, within a period of one week from the receipt of the amounts, issue cheques after duly verifying the claims of the petitioners in accordance with the list of the claimants, which appears to have been computerized. The entire exercise shall be initiated, processed and completed within a period of three months from today. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

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

¶18

24.02.2011 KH

M.C. Pakeeraiah, v. The State of A.P. ]

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.C. Pakeeraiah, v. The State of A.P. ]

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

Chukka Suri Babu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Gundu Narasimha Rao S/o Late Sammaiah Vs The District Collector, Khammam

Sri Bawarlal Varma, Vs The District Collector

P. Anantha Reddy S/o P. Ram Reddy Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land

Kishtapuram Erranna, Vs Govt of a.P., Irrigation and Command Area Development

Mumma Reddy Vasumathamma, Vs The Distrcit Collector