Allowed

Habibullah Aarif v. The Chief Manager Power Grid Corporation Steel Plant

Telangana HC16 Oct 2014WP/29855/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

These Writ Petitions concerning compensation for telegraph earth continuity were dismissed as the amounts were already paid. The Court permitted petitioners to apply for enhancement under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 before a District Judge.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to make applications under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for enhancement of compensation before the District Judge.

Habibullah Aarif Vs The Chief Manager Power Grid… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

¶2

W.P.Nos.14728, 14734, 15445, 15710, 19966, 29855 of 2010

¶3

W.P.No.14728/2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

Smt. Kankatala Rama Devi

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

1. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., (A Government. Of India Enterprise) CAO, Sector-X, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam-530 032, and others.

¶9

RESPONDENTS

¶10

COMMON ORDER:

¶11

Since the cause of action in all these writ petitions is one and the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of all these writ petitions by way of this common order.

¶12

2. Heard Sri Raja Gopala Rao Hanumanthu, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.14728, 14734, 15445, 15710 of 2010; Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.19966 & 29855 of 2010; Sri Valluri Mohan Srinivas and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent-Power Grid Corporation of India, Learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 2 and 3 and Ms. G. Sudha, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent-NTPC in W.P.No.29855 of 2010, apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶13

3. During the course of hearing, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Power Grid Corporation of India that pending these writ petitions, the amounts have already been paid to the petitioners herein towards compensation under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for brevity ‘the Act’). On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said amounts granted by the respondents are meagre and insufficient. While referring to Section 16(3) of the Act it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Power Grid Corporation of India that it is open for the petitioners herein to make applications before the concerned District Judge for enhancement of compensation, if the petitioners are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation given to them.

¶14

4. In view of the above reasons, these writ petitions are

¶15

disposed of, permitting the petitioners herein to make applications under Section 16(3) of the Act, seeking enhancement of compensation. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶16

_______________________ JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.

¶17

16^th October, 2014 Js.

Habibullah Aarif v. The Chief Manager Power Grid Corporation Steel Plant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Habibullah Aarif v. The Chief Manager Power Grid Corporation Steel Plant

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

Lakshmi Traders, Vs Government of India, Rep by its Secretary Ministry

Ms. J. Kasturi Bayamma, Vs The India Oil Corporation Ltd.

Sri Lakshminarayan Hunumanji Math, Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

Smt.Dasari Sujata Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., (a Govt of India

Kanakatala Rama Devi Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

Hyderabad Hockey Association, Vs Hockey Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its President