Dismissed

N.Laxmi Kantha Rao v. The District Collector, Adilabad District

Telangana HC27 Aug 2012WP/12122/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order disposing of a writ petition filed to challenge the payment of compensation to some respondents while ignoring the petitioners' rights in ancestral acquired land. The Court directed the officials to refer the dispute regarding apportionment among the entitled parties to a Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of directing the official respondents to refer the dispute concerning apportionment of compensation to the Civil Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

N.Laxmi Kantha Rao Vs The District Collector, Adilabad… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

W.P.No.12122 of 2012

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

The petitioners filed this writ petition seeking mandamus declaring action of the respondents 1 to 4 in paying compensation amount exclusively to the respondents 5 to 7 ignoring rights of the petitioners in the acquired land and passing Award and conducting enquiry without notices to the petitioners, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently directing the respondents to pay compensation amount to the petitioners. The petitioners 1 to 3 are brothers. The 5^th respondent is their mother and the respondents 6 and 7 are their sisters. Acquired land in this case is Ac.10.24 guntas in S.No.222 and Ac.9.34 guntas in S.No.223 of Metpally village in Beemini Mandal, Adilabad District. Consent Award was passed in this case fixing the compensation amount. The petitioners’ counsel says that the petitioners have no grievance about quantum of compensation as per the Award.

¶5

2. It is the petitioners’ contention that the above

¶6

acquired lands are ancestral properties in which the

¶7

petitioners have also got right and that they have appropriate shares in the compensation payable for acquiring those lands. Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition reports on instructions that compensation amount is not yet paid to the respondents 5 to 7 in this matter, as the Official respondents are awaiting for some sanctions. The petitioners through their Advocate gave notice dated 10.04.2012 to the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Mancherial making their claim for compensation for these lands. The consent Award copy of which is filed in this writ petition bears no date, except true copy thereof being signed by Special Deputy Tahsildar, Land Acquisition on 20.04.2012. In view of the dispute as to the persons entitled for compensation in this case, it would be appropriate for the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer to refer the dispute between the petitioners 1 to 3 and the respondents 5 to 7 to Civil Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) for apportionment of compensation as per their rights under Civil Law.

¶8

3. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 4 to refer the dispute under Section

¶9

31(2) of the Act to Civil Court for determination as to apportionment of compensation among the persons entitled

¶10

therefor.

¶11

_____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 25^th April, 2012 PNV

N.Laxmi Kantha Rao v. The District Collector, Adilabad District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Laxmi Kantha Rao v. The District Collector, Adilabad District

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

N.Ravi Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

K. Madhusudhana Rao, Vs The Honble Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Md.Hussain Sharief, Vs Smt. T.Rani Samyukta

Dr. Valli Rajagopal, Vs T.Sakala Reddy

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Shadnagar Vs The Labour Court -Iii, Hyderabad

Syed Javed Ahamad Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation