Disposed

Menati Lakshmamma,W/o. Narsayya, v. The District Collector, Nellore.

Telangana HC25 Feb 2013WP/31288/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding non-payment of land acquisition compensation, the court observed that while the Collector's procedure was flawed due to no rival claims existing, the matter was already referred to the civil court. Consequently, no interference was granted at this stage, and the petitioner was permitted to participate in the civil proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition and WPMP are disposed of; civil proceedings continue with liberty for the petitioner to participate.

Menati Lakshmamma,W/o. Narsayya, Vs The District… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.31288 of 2012

¶2

Dated 25.02.2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

Menati Lakshmamma

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

And The District Collector, Nellore and 3 others.

¶7

Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.P.Ravi Kiran Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.4: None appeared

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

Order:

¶11

This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief:

¶12

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not paying compensation amount to the petitioner for her land admeasuring Ac. 0.50 cents which was acquired by the respondents in Sy No. 193 situated at Nelathuru Village, Muthukuru Mandal, Nellore district and depositing the compensation amount in civil court as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation amount immediately to the petitioner as per prevailing market value along with interest.”

¶13

At the hearing, it has come out that since the petitioner has claimed compensation only for an extent of Ac.0-50 cents in Survey No.193, she was paid compensation in respect thereof and since no one has made a claim for the balance extent of Ac.0-50 cents in the said Survey Number, the issue was referred to the competent civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶14

Even though the procedure adopted by respondent No.2 is not in accordance with the provisions of Sections 30 and 31 Act as there were no rival claims regarding compensation, since the issue was already referred to the civil Court, I am not inclined to interfere with the pending proceedings before the civil Court at this stage. The petitioner is permitted to participate in the said proceedings and make a claim for award of compensation to her.

¶15

Subject to the liberty given as above, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶16

As a sequel, WPMP.No.39895 of 2012, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶17

_____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J

¶18

Date: 25^th February, 2013 lur

Menati Lakshmamma,W/o. Narsayya, v. The District Collector, Nellore.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Menati Lakshmamma,W/o. Narsayya, v. The District Collector, Nellore.

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

Smt. K.R.Shyamala, Vs The District Collector

Diddi Hanumaiah Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Bomma Kushal Reddy, Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Syed Habibulla Shah Vs The State of a. P

Pratthi Sarojini Vs The Sub Registrar

Dandamudi Biotech, Vs The Sub Registrar