Allowed

N. Hanumantha Rao v. The Competent Authority and

Telangana HC27 Feb 2012WP/5092/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that Competent Authorities cannot summarily reject claims for unlisted structures via endorsement; such matter must be considered during the award enquiry or via reference.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Special Deputy Collector to consider submission regarding unlisted structures during award enquiry or allow petitioner to seek reference under Section 3G(5).

N. Hanumantha Rao Vs The Competent Authority and — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.5092 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

A notification was published in the Gazette of India on 30.11.2009 under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) proposing to acquire various items of property in Gundlapalli Village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District for the purpose of widening National Highway No.5. The property of the petitioner was also notified. The petitioner made a representation to the Competent Authority & Special Deputy Collector, respondent No.1 herein, stating that the structures made by him upon the land proposed to be acquired were not notified and that he is entitled to be paid compensation for them. Through an endorsement, dated 07.09.2011, respondent No.1 informed the petitioner that the construction was made subsequent to the notification and in that view of the matter, the compensation cannot be awarded for the structures. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

¶6

It may be true that the structures said to have been made by the petitioner were not mentioned in the notification issued under Section 3A of the Act. In case the structures existed by the time the notification was issued, the petitioner can put forward his case in the course of award enquiry by respondent No.1. The impugned endorsement was issued as a reply to the representation made by the petitioner. Such a step is not provided for under the Act. It is only at the stage of award that the petitioner can put forward all his contentions and respondent No.1

¶7

can deal with the same. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the view taken by respondent No.1, the remedy of seeking reference is available under Section 3G (5) of the Act.

¶8

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that:

¶9

(a) in case respondent No.1 has not passed any award as yet in respect of the property of the petitioner, he shall take into account such matter as the petitioner may place before him, and decide the same uninfluenced by the observations made in the endorsement, dated 07.09.2011; and

¶10

(b) if an award has already been passed, it shall be open to the petitioner to seek reference under Section 3G (5) of the Act.

¶11

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of.

¶12

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

_____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:27.02.2012

¶14

kdl

N. Hanumantha Rao v. The Competent Authority and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Hanumantha Rao v. The Competent Authority and

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

B. Lalitha Devi, Vs The District Collector

The Nallajerla Large Sized Coop. Society Ltd., Vs The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Yadaiah Goud Vs Licensing Authority and Prohibition and Excise Superintendent

Bethapudi Pacs Ltd., repby President Vs General Manager, District Cooperative Central bank

N.G.Ranga Raithu Mithra Sangam, Medepally represented Vs The General Manager, District Co.operative Central Bank

R. Samuel John S/o R. Paul, Vs The Managing Director, Ap. Cooperative Housing