Dismissed

Smt.Addaguduru Lalitha, v. The Sub-Collector

Telangana HC4 Mar 2013WP/5200/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the writ petition challenging acquisition proceedings as powerless since compensation was already paid to the respondent. The petitioner was directed to file a civil suit for recovery against the other party in dispute.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as no relief could be granted at this stage; the petitioner was directed to file a civil suit for recovery of compensation. The interlocutory application was dismissed

Smt.Addaguduru Lalitha, Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.5200 of 2013

¶3

Dated 04.03.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Smt.Addaguduru Lalitha

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Sub-Collector, Khammam and others

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.V.N.Narasimham

¶11

Counsel for respondent No.1: Assistant Government Pleader

¶12

for Revenue

¶13

Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri CH.Satish Kumar,

¶14

standing counsel for Endowments

¶15

Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4: --

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the proceedings in Rc.No.I/1004/2012 dated 12.09.2012 of respondent No.1, wherein he has proposed to acquire the land along with structures bearing No.3-1-07, Raja Veedhi, Bhadrachalam Village and Mandal, Khammam District as illegal and arbitrary.

¶19

The averments of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petition would show that there is a serious dispute between herself and respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respect of entitlement to the compensation payable for the abovementioned property acquired for development of respondent No.2 devasthanam.

¶20

At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submitted that since the property was purchased by respondent No.3 and registered in the name of his wife, who is no other than the mother of the petitioner and respondent No.4, on the consent given by respondent No.3 not only for acquisition but also for payment of compensation to respondent No.4, compensation was paid to the said respondent on 19.02.2013. This submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is not controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

Inasmuch as the dispute centers around the persons among the petitioner and respondent No.4 to whom the compensation is payable, and as compensation having already been paid to respondent No.4, no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. The only remedy left open to the petitioner is to file an appropriate suit against respondent Nos.3 and 4 and claim recovery of compensation.

¶22

Subject to the liberty given as above, the Writ Petition is

¶23

dismissed.

¶24

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.6483 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand dismissed as infructuous.

¶25

________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶26

04^th March, 2013 GHN

Smt.Addaguduru Lalitha, v. The Sub-Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Addaguduru Lalitha, v. The Sub-Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Rahaman, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

Guguloth Chinna Venkulu Vs The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition)

M/s. Shoba Oil Mill and Modern Rice Mill Vs The District Collector (Civil Supplies)

The A.P. Power General Employees Union, Vs Mr. K.Vijayanand

Kondlapudi Sankar Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Uduthala , Malyala Veeramma Vs The Commissioner