Disposed

Oduru Dinamani, W/o Bikshulu Reddy, v. The District Collector (Land Acquisition)

Telangana HC26 Nov 2012WP/33937/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed for mandamus declaring the District Collector's action non-payment of determined compensation under Section 28-A as illegal was disposed of. The court directed the Collector to refer the dispute to the civil court under Section 28-A(3) instead of further reconsideration. A related W.P. stands disposed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to refer the dispute to the civil court under Section 28-A(3) within two months; writ petition and associated W.P.M.P. disposed of.

Oduru Dinamani, W/o Bikshulu Reddy, Vs The District… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.33937 of 2012

¶2

Dated 2 6 th November, 2012

¶3

Between:

¶4

Oduru Dinamani and another

¶5

…Petitioners

¶6

and

¶7

The District Collector (Land Acquisition), SPSR Nellore District, Nellore and another

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri G.Nageswar Rao for Sri P.Phalguna Rao

¶10

Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 is not paying the determined compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) in terms of the Award, dated 24.03.2006, in L.A.O.P.No.49 of 2001 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶14

It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that they are similarly situated to the persons, who filed the above-mentioned LAOP, which was decreed on 24.03.2006. That when their application for redetermination of the compensation under Section 28-A of the Act was not considered, they have filed W.P.No.12869 of 2008. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 20.06.2008, with the direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioners’ representation, dated 21.06.2006. The petitioners further pleaded that

¶15

in pursuance of the said direction, their representation was considered and respondent No.2 has re-determined the compensation at Rs.35,000/- as against Rs.1,68,954/- which is payable to them. As the petitioners have not agreed with the fixation of the said amount, they have filed a petition on 20.09.2010 with a calculation memo to further re-fix the compensation in terms of the Award and Decree in L.A.O.P.No.49 of 2001. As no further action thereon was taken by respondents, the petitioners filed this writ petition.

¶16

No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents.

¶17

I have heard Sri G.Nageswar Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri P.Phalguna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

¶18

Under Section 28-A(3) of the Act, if a person does not accept the award made under Section 28-A(2) of the Act, he may by a written application to the Collector request him to refer the matter to the Court for determination. As the petitioners have not accepted the redetermination made by respondent No.2, they should have availed the above-mentioned remedy. Instead, they have made a petition for reconsidering the determination already made. In view of availability of effective statutory remedy, it is appropriate that the petition made by the petitioner shall be treated as a request for reference to the civil Court by respondent No.2. Accordingly, respondent No.2 shall refer the dispute raised by the petitioners for adjudication by the civil Court under Section 28-A(3) of the Act within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.43174 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26^th November, 2012 VGB

Oduru Dinamani, W/o Bikshulu Reddy, v. The District Collector (Land Acquisition)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oduru Dinamani, W/o Bikshulu Reddy, v. The District Collector (Land Acquisition)

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

Mohd. Ismail, Vs M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

D.Venkata Gopi Krishna, Vs The Sub Registrar

Gandikota Subbamma, Vs The District Collector

Smt. Anakapalli Vijayalaxmi, Vs The District Collector

Smt. Vuddagiri Kamala Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the District Collect

Smt. Reddi Narasamma, W/o. Papa Rao Aged about 45 Vs The Chief Engineer