Dismissed

Mohan Das, S/o. late Ramcharan Das v. The Spl. Gr. Dy. Collector cum Land Acquisition Officer

Telangana HC8 Jul 2014WP/17806/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging a land acquisition award were permitted to pursue their title dispute and claim compensation through pending civil original petitions, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to file applications in pending original petitions in the City Civil Courts to establish title and claim compensation. Writ petition disposed of. No order as to costs.

Mohan Das, S/o. late Ramcharan Das Vs The Spl. Gr. Dy… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶4

Present

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.17806 of 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohan Das, S/o. Late Ramcharan Das, Hindu, Aged 34 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. 22-1-111, Kali Khabar, Inside Imliban Bus Stand, Chadarghat, Hyderabad & 3 others

¶9

.. Petitioners

¶10

AND

¶11

The Spl. Grade Deputy Collector-cumLand Acquisition Officer, LAHMR, GHMC, Hyderabad & another

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.17806 of 2014

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

The claim of the petitioners is that they are the owners of land to an extent of 600 square yards in Premises bearing Nos.4-8-50 and 4-8-60/A/10, Plot No.16 of Survey No.16 of Thotaguda Village of Rangamahal Road, Putlibowli, Hyderabad. The land acquisition proceedings are initiated under the repealed Act to acquire the land. The names of the petitioners were not shown in the land acquisition proceedings and no opportunity was given to the petitioners to contest the land acquisition proceedings and to participate in the award enquiry. An award was passed on 31.10.2013. As seen from the award, as there were more than one claims against the same property, the Land Acquisition Officer credited the amount in the competent civil Court. Having come to know that an award is passed acquiring the land of the petitioners, as the petitioners were not put on notice, the petitioners have directly filed O.P.(SR) Nos.4951 and 4952 of 2014 which were returned as not maintainable. Hence, this writ petition is instituted challenging the award, dated 31.10.2013.

¶18

2. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are willing to go before the civil Court and implead as respondents in O.P.No.448 of 2014, on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad; O.P.No.449 of 2014, on the file of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad; and O.P.No.450 of 2014, on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶19

3. As per Section 30 of the repealed Act, if there is a dispute on entitlement for compensation or there are more than one claims to receive compensation, it is competent for the Collector to refer the dispute to the civil Court. Since there were more than one claims to the title of the property, the Collector referred the dispute to the civil Court and which are now pending before the XI Additional Chief Judge, X Additional Chief Judge and IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. If the petitioners have a valid claim to the property, it is also open to the petitioners to file applications in the above O.Ps and establish their title to claim compensation.

¶20

4. Without expressing any opinion on merits, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the XI Additional Chief Judge in O.P.No.448 of 2014, X Additional Chief Judge in O.P.No.449 of 2014 and XI Additional Chief Judge in O.P.No.450 of 2014, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and file an appropriate application supported by the relevant documents to show the

¶21

entitlement to claim full compensation or appropriate share in the compensation already determined. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶22

_________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 8^th July, 2014 KL

¶23

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.17806 of 2014

¶25

Date: 8^th July, 2014

¶26

Mohan Das, S/o. late Ramcharan Das v. The Spl. Gr. Dy. Collector cum Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Das, S/o. late Ramcharan Das v. The Spl. Gr. Dy. Collector cum Land Acquisition Officer

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

Nallagorla Nageswara Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

D.L.Narsimham S/o. late Bala Gandhara Sastry Vs The District Registrar

J. Mohammed Ghouse, S/o Late Jalna Khawja Mian, Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

A. Rajasekhar, Vs The Government Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Bokam Venkata Ramana, Vs The State of A.P.

Naga Raju, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal