Disposed

Fareeda Hussaini, v. The State Govt. of A.P.

Telangana HC6 Mar 2013WP/4303/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition concerning land acquisition in Kurnool District. The court accepted submissions that an award was passed but compensation remained unclaimed. It directed the Collector to decide the pending claim for payment within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to approach Collector for claim; Collector directed to decide claim within two months.

Fareeda Hussaini, Vs The State Govt. of A.P. — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.4303 of 2013

¶3

Date: 06.03.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Fareeda Hussaini and seven others

¶6

..... Petitioners

¶7

And:

¶8

The State Govt of A.P., Reptd., by the District Collector, Kurnool District and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri S.A.Razzaaq

¶11

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition

¶12

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶13

The grievance of the petitioners in this Writ Petition is that even though their land to an extent of Acs.10.08 cents in Survey No.913 of Nandyal Town and Village, Kurnool District, was acquired under notification, dated 25.09.2009, neither an award has been passed nor compensation has been paid to them.

¶14

At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on instructions, submitted that notices under Sections 9(1) and (3) and 10(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) were issued in the year 2010; that neither the petitioners nor their representative have appeared in the award enquiry; that an award was passed on 17.06.2010; and that as, the petitioners have not come forward to receive the

¶15

compensation amount, the same has been kept in revenue deposit. She further submitted that if and when the petitioners approach respondent No.2 with proper documents, their claim will be considered and compensation paid, on being satisfied on the ownership of the petitioners, by respondent No.2.

¶16

The above submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader are placed on record and the Writ Petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioners to approach respondent No.2 with a claim for payment of compensation. Respondent No.2 shall take appropriate decision on the petitioners’ claim within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such claim.

¶17

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.5368 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous

¶18

___________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶19

06^th March 2013 DR

Fareeda Hussaini, v. The State Govt. of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fareeda Hussaini, v. The State Govt. of A.P.

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

P.Paradesi Naidu Vs Sri. Srinivasa Rao

M. Thirupalaiah Chetty, Vs D.K. Srinivasa Rao (Died per L.R.)

Tammana Sai Rama Rao, S/o. Sriramulu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Sri Sai Srinivasa Constructions, Vs The General Manager

P. Prabhakar, Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Marella Sujatha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its