Allowed

G. Janardhana Goud, (died) per LRs v. The District Collector

Telangana HC15 Oct 2012WP/19757/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking compensation for land surrendered under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The Court directed the respondents to pay compensation under Rule 10A within three months, noting that the petitioner was declared a non-surplus holder by the appellate tribunal after surrender.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to ensure the petitioner is paid compensation for the land under Rule 10A within three months.

G. Janardhana Goud, (died) per LRs Vs The District… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.19757 OF 2002

¶3

Dt:- 15.10.2012

¶4

Between:-

¶5

G.Janardhana Goud and others

¶6

The District Collector and others

¶7

… Petitioners and … Respondents

¶8

This Court made the following:-

¶9

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.19757 OF 2002

¶11

ORDER: -

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶13

The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the declaration filed by the petitioner under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short, “the Act”), was determined by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Madanapalle, by order in C.C.No.498/PGN/75, dated 19.04.1978, declaring the petitioner as holding excess land to an extent of 0.134 standard holdings of the ceiling area. The said land was obtained on surrender. Meanwhile, appeal filed by the petitioner before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Chittoor was allowed by order, dated 26.10.1978, which became final. Petitioner thereafter filed a representation in terms of sub-

¶14

clause (5) of Section 7 read with Rule 10A of the Act, seeking payment of compensation as the land, which was taken surrender of, was already distributed to the weaker sections. Petitioner attended enquiry in pursuance of the said representation, but as no orders were passed settling the petitioner’s claim, he filed the present writ petition.

¶15

The order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Chittoor in L.R.A.No.22 of 1978, dated 26.10.1978, produced along with the writ petition shows that, as the benefit of Section 4A was given, the holding of the petitioner became non-surplus.

¶16

A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.4 accepting the aforesaid factual position and as per Rule 10A, it is evident that the petitioner is entitled to compensation in terms of the situation envisaged under Rule 10A of the Rules. It is, therefore, incumbent that the said Rule is given effect to and the petitioner is paid the compensation for the lands so obtained from him on surrender in view of order of the appellate tribunal subsequently holding him as non-surplus holder. Since the possession of the land was taken on 06.03.1977 and the appeal was allowed on 26.10.1978, after taking the land from the petitioner, the respondents are bound to work out the compensation payable to the petitioner in terms of Rule 10A of the Rules framed under the Act. Consequently, the Writ Petition as prayed for deserves to be allowed.

¶17

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. In view of sufficient time already lost, the respondents concerned shall ensure that the petitioner’s grievance is redressed, as directed above, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The miscellaneous applications, if any, stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶19

15.10.2012

¶20

lmv

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.19757 OF 2002

¶23

15.10.2012