Dismissed

Tahsildar-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer v. Pakki Nagabhushana Rao

Telangana HC23 Apr 2014CRP/2260/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Single Judge dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order by the executing court which cautioned the Land Acquisition Officer to pay enhanced compensation within a specific date. The court held the order was not adverse and the petition was misconceived.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions were disposed of as infructuous.

Tahsildar-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer Vs Pakki… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

C.R.P.No. 2260 of 2013

¶3

DATE: 23.04.2014

¶4

Between: Tahsildar-cum-Land Acquisition Officer .. Petitioner And Pakki Nagabhushana Rao Patnaik .. Respondent

¶5

O R D E R:-

¶6

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 28.03.2013 passed in E.P.No. 130 of 2010 in L.A.O.P.No. 23 of 1985 whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, ordered attachment of the property of the Government without determining the actual amount that is required to be paid in satisfaction of the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1998 passed in L.A.O.P.No. 23 of 1985 and confirmed in A.S.Nos.675 of 1999 and 826 of 1999.

¶7

A perusal of the order impugned would reveal that there are no disputes on the facts that the land belonging to the respondent was acquired in the year 1998 and from then onwards, no compensation as enhanced by the Civil Court has been paid on some ground or the other. It is not in dispute that as on today, the aspect of entitlement of the enhanced compensation has attained finality on the ground of disposal of A.S.Nos.675 of 1999 and 826 of 1999. Now, what all that is to be done by the executing Court is a simple arithmetic calculation in terms of the order and decree passed in L.A.O.P.No. 23 of 1985 as modified in A.S.Nos.675 of 1999 and 826 of 1999, if there are any modifications in the first appeals. A careful reading of the order of the trial Court would go to show that the learned Judge seriously observed that if the petitioner – Land Acquisition Officer would not pay the entitled amount to the decree holder by 22.04.2013, necessary action would be initiated. It is a kind of caution to the petitioner to be prompt in making payment to the respondent within the time stipulated

¶8

and the same cannot be construed as an adverse order having been passed against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition itself is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

¶9

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is needless to mention that the entitlement of the land losers in respect of payment of compensation shall be strictly in accordance with the orders passed in L.A.O.P.No.23 of 1985 and A.S.Nos.675 of 1999 and 826 of 1999. No order as to costs.

¶10

As a sequel to the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶11

________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 23.04.2014 bcj

Tahsildar-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer v. Pakki Nagabhushana Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tahsildar-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer v. Pakki Nagabhushana Rao

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

Battena Venkata Rao Vs D. Venkata Rao and Another

Medisetti Bhagavan, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

N.Sreenivasulu, Vs The District Collector

Tahsildar-Cum-Land Acquisition officer, Vizianagaram. Vs Dara Satya Sundar (Died), (5th Claimant)

Tahsildar-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer Vs Dara Rajagopal

Tahsildar - cum- Land Acquisition Officer Vs Pinninti Appalaramu