Disposed

Kovelamudi Ravindra v. The Highway Administrator and Project Director

Telangana HC4 Sept 2013WP/25334/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an impugned order granting limited time for vacating land acquired for highway widening, this Court granted two months time to the petroleum outlet owner to shift and hand over possession while clarifying that eviction may follow if delayed.

What did the court decide?

Two months time granted to vacate and hand over the affected land to the respondent.

Kovelamudi Ravindra Vs The Highway Administrator and… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.25334 of 2013

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S.Varma, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – National Highways.

¶4

The petitioner’s land, of an extent of 1376 sq. mts. in R.S.No.915/4A of Budampadu Village, Guntur District, was acquired for widening of N.H.5 from four lane to six lane wherein HPCL Petroleum and Diesel station is situated and compensation was paid to him. However, possession of the said land was not taken from the petitioner and he continued to carry on his business of running petroleum outlet. The petitioner received a notice dated 24.07.2013, under Section 26(2) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’), calling upon him to show cause why he should not be treated as an unauthorized occupant and evicted. The petitioner filed his reply seeking a reasonable time to vacate the premises. However, ten days time was granted to him by the impugned order dated 19.08.2013. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶5

On 28.08.2013, when this Court heard this matter, while granting stay of eviction, Sri S.S.Varma, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – National Highways, was required to get instructions. Today, Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that the petitioner has already been given sufficient time even after receiving compensation amount and, as such, at the most, he may be granted a month’s time as the respondent – National Highways require the said land for the purpose for which it was acquired.

¶6

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand,

¶7

submits that, since the shifting of petroleum outlet is involved, the petitioner requires a minimum of three months time as he has to obtain several permissions under the Control Order from various competent authorities for relocating the storage tank and the petroleum outlet.

¶8

Evidently, the land having been acquired by the respondent – National Highways is not in controversy nor payment of compensation to the petitioner as early as on 20.09.2011. The petitioner, however, continued to use the said land for the petroleum outlet because possession was not formally sought for from him, and now the respondent – National Highways is seeking possession of the said land. The petitioner is bound to deliver possession as he has already received compensation long back. The petitioner is, therefore, carrying on the business of petroleum outlet on the land which vests in the Central Government under the National Highways Act. The only limited relief which the petitioner can be granted in the circumstances is to grant some reasonable time to enable him to vacate and handover possession of the said land to the respondent – National Highways.

¶9

In my opinion, keeping in view that the petroleum outlet is required to be shifted, I deem it just and proper to grant two months time to the petitioner i.e. on or before 31.10.2013 by which time he shall make appropriate arrangements for handing over the affected land to the respondent – National Highways. It is made clear that, in the event of the petitioner not delivering the land as directed above, the respondent – National Highways shall be at liberty to take possession of the land in accordance with law.

¶10

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶11

VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J

¶12

Date: 04.09.2013 usd

Kovelamudi Ravindra v. The Highway Administrator and Project Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kovelamudi Ravindra v. The Highway Administrator and Project Director

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

Gaddam Venkata Ramana, Vs Sri Venkateswara University, represented by its

Bukke Suresh Naick, Vs Sri Venkateswara University

Marureddy Nallapa Reddy Vs Chava Sudarshana Reddy

DM the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Hyd Vs Syed Zaheer and Another

Chief Manager Vs P.Veeranarayana

M v v Satyanarayana Vs Superintending Engineer