Allowed

Lenkala Raja Reddy v. Lenkala Laxmi

Telangana HC22 Mar 2013CRP/4671/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed revisions challenging dismissal of compromise petitions in land acquisition compensation dispute. Held lower court erred in rejecting petitions on technical grounds without affording opportunity to cure defects. Matters remanded for disposal after notice to respondents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.02.2012 set aside; matters remanded to lower court for disposal after notice to respondents and hearing within two months.

Lenkala Raja Reddy Vs Lenkala Laxmi — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

C.R.P.Nos.2239, 4648, 4671, 4698 of 2012 and C.R.P.(Sr) No.21104 of 2012

¶3

COMMON ORDER:-

¶4

Since the question of law involved in all these revisions is common, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶5

C.R.P.Nos.2239, 4648, 4671, 4698 of 2012 and C.R.P.(SR) No.21104 of 2012 have been filed challenging the dismissal order dated 22.02.2012 passed in I.A.Nos.93, 91, 92, 94 and 95 of 2012 respectively in O.S.No.45 of 2009, by the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District.

¶6

In view of the rival claims claiming compensation in respect of the property acquired, the matter has been referred to the Court under Section 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. Then the petitioners filed a petition under Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to file the terms of compromise and to dispose of the matters. Accordingly, notice was given to the Government Pleader and terms of compromise were also filed.

¶7

The Court below, however, dismissed the above referred I.A.s stating that in the ‘D’ Form, it is not shown in whose name the house properties are standing and the percentage of the share claimed by each of the person in the said group and that the relationship among the claimants of a particular group is also not mentioned and the compromise petitions have been filed without furnishing any material particulars.

¶8

When there are certain defects in a petition filed by the petitioners, the Court below ought to have returned the same raising objections and given an opportunity to the petitioners to comply with those objections. When the parties have entered into compromise and filed petitions seeking to record the terms of compromise and when neither the state nor the respondents have objected the same, the Court below is not justified in dismissing the petitions on technical grounds.

¶9

In view of the same, these revisions are allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 22.02.2012 passed in I.A.Nos.93, 91, 92, 94 and 95 of 2012 in O.S.No.45 of 2009 and all these matters are remanded back to the Court below. The Court

¶10

below, after giving notices to the other respondents and also to the second respondent – Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit, S.R.S.P., and after giving them reasonable opportunity of hearing, may dispose of these matters in accordance with law, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

_____________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar

¶12

March 22, 2013 Bvv

Lenkala Raja Reddy v. Lenkala Laxmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lenkala Raja Reddy v. Lenkala Laxmi

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

Md. Usman Vs Md. Sameena Begum

Mohammed Muneeb Akbar Vs Ali Bin Mubarak

Katragadda Kumaraswamy Vs Katragadda Haranadha Babu

Bairineni Bhaskar Rao Vs Aila Satyanarayana , T.V. Satyam

Nune Raji Reddy Vs Nune Ramakka

Edla Narayan Reddy Vs Vadiyala Rajavva