Disposed

Sri Kondala Laxminarayana Reddy v. The State of A.P. Rep. by The District Collector

Telangana HC24 Oct 2014WP/2038/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding land acquisition compensation. The original basis for stay (pending civil suit) ended when that suit was dismissed, but a compensation dispute survived due to a pending appeal. The Court directed payment of the balance amount secured by a bank guarantee.

What did the court decide?

Directing official respondents to pay the balance compensation to the petitioner upon furnishing a bank guarantee by the unofficial respondents.

Sri Kondala Laxminarayana Reddy Vs The State of A.P. Rep… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.2038 of 2009

¶2

O R D E R:

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶4

“To pass a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 1 & 2 in trying to disburse the compensation amount to Respondent Nos 3 to 5 without referring the dispute of the Competent Civil Court as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principals of Natural justice, in violation of Sections 30 & 31 of Land Acquisition Act 1984 and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to refer the dispute to the Competent Civil Court for adjudication regarding the apportionment of Compensation amount for D.No. 40, 41 & 43 of Dattapuram Village, Kondapur Mandal, Kadapa District for acquiring under notification No.GNSS/C/442/2007 dated 31-5-2007.”

¶5

2. Heard Sri E.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri K.Murali Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶6

3. On the ground of pendency of Civil Suit vide O.S.No.121/2008, on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu instituted by the petitioner herein against the respondents for partition of the subject property, the petitioner herein filed the present writ petition.

¶7

4. This Court, while issuing Rule Nisi on 05.02.2009 in WPMP.No.2578/2009, granted interim stay of disbursement of the amount in respect of the subject property. Subsequently, the unofficial respondents herein filed WVMP.No.3115/2009 before this Court, seeking to vacate the said interim order dated 05.02.2009 and this Court on 18.12.2009, passed the following order:

¶8

“In the light of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the stand taken in the counter affidavit and the material papers placed before this Court, in particular the respective pleadings of the parties in O.S.No. 121 of 2008, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interim stay granted earlier to be modified and the vacate petitioners are permitted to withdraw half of the amount without furnishing any security.

¶9

Accordingly, the vacate petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. It is needless to say that respondent No. 2 in the writ petition to pay half of the amount referred to supra to the vacate petitioners.”

¶10

4. It is brought to the notice of this Court during the course of arguments that in pursuance of the above orders of this Court dated 18.12.2009, the unofficial respondents herein withdrew half of the compensation amount.

¶11

5. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents that the very basis for the present writ petition i.e., the pendency of OS.121/2008 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu for partition, is no longer available to the petitioner herein as the learned Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu dismissed the said suit on 04.09.2014. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.121/2008 an appeal suit, being AS.No.32/2014, has been preferred by the writ petitioner herein on the file of the Court of the Second Additional District Judge, Cuddapah, Proddutur and is pending.

¶12

6. In the above background, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the pendency of the Appeal filed by the petitioner herein, the unofficial respondents are not entitled for the entire amount of compensation. However, there is a suggestion made by the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents that his clients would furnish bank guarantee for the balance half amount of compensation payable by the official respondents. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the said proposal is acceptable to his client.

¶13

7. In view of the above reasons, writ petition is disposed of, directing the official respondents 1 and 2 herein to pay the balance amount of compensation also to the petitioner herein on furnishing bank guarantee for the said sum of money by the unofficial respondents herein. It is also made clear that the entitlement of the petitioner herein for the said amount shall depend on the outcome of the appeal preferred by him vide AS.No.32/2014 pending on the file of the Court of the Second Additional District Judge, Cuddapah at Proddutur. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶14

_______________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶15

Date:24.10.2014 grk

¶16

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.2038 of 2009

¶18

Date :24.10.2014

¶19

grk

¶20

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.2038 of 2009 Date :24.10.2014

¶22

Between: Sri Kondala Laxminarayana Reddy, S/o Narapu Reddy, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Business, R/o. D.No.26/883, Guruvaiah Thota Street, Proddatur, Kadapa District.

¶23

… Petitioner

¶24

and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by The District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District and four others.

¶25

… Respondents

Sri Kondala Laxminarayana Reddy v. The State of A.P. Rep. by The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kondala Laxminarayana Reddy v. The State of A.P. Rep. by The District 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

Smt. Jogaparthi Mangamma Vs Chief Executive Officer

Bachina Somasundara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.V. Konda Reddy (Hindu) Vs Mandal Revenue Officer

MandaRajalingamma Vs The Union of India, Rep. by Dy. Secretary, Ministry of

Gorle Dhanalakshmi, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dudekula Hussaini, Vs The Union of India, Rep. by its Superintending