Allowed

Meraka Suryanarayana v. The District Collector

Telangana HC24 Apr 2014WP/4939/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the respondents' interference with petitioners' possession of patta-land required for a Panchayat Office. The Court directed the respondents to acquire the land only after following due process of law, relying on settled principles regarding compensation for public purposes.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to acquire the petitioners' land only after following due process of law.

Meraka Suryanarayana Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.4939 OF 2004

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ land in an extent of Ac.0.06 cents situated in Block Nos.64 and 65, Tamaram village, Santakaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District, for which petitioners were given pattas, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

¶5

2) The main grievance of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 is that they have been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the lands in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents each situated in Block Nos.64 and 65, Tamaram Village, Santakaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District in pursuance of patta HP Nos.578/94 dated 1.7.1994,603/94 dated 1.7.1994 and 597/94 dated 1.7.1994 respectively since the year 1994. There are about 12 to 13 coconut trees in the land and the petitioners have been eaking out their livelihood by selling usufructs from the land.

¶6

3) While things stood thus, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Santakaviti Mandal sent a Surveyor on 27.9.2002 to measure the said sites in order to construct a Panchayat Office. Therefore, immediately, the petitioners submitted a representation to the Mandal Revenue Officer informing that they were granted pattas for the said sites. But the Mandal Revenue Officer did not take any action on the representation of the petitioners and started making efforts to construct the Pahcyat Office by digging pits for basements and started laying foundation. Then the petitioners submitted a representation to the District Collector, Srikakulam District on 16.10.2002 requesting not to deprive them from the said lands as small extents of land which have been granted in their favour. Inspite of the said representation to the District Collector, the revenue authorities are threatening to dispossess the petitioners from their lawful possession illegally either without following due process of law or without providing alternative sites or making any

¶7

payment of compensation.

¶8

4) Though the writ petition came to be admitted on 17.05.2004, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Petitioners had also filed copies of proceedings dated 1.7.1994 issued by the respondents granting pattas in their favour. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in view of the settled law by a larger bench of this Court that if the land is required for the Government for the purpose of public, the land losers are entitled to be compensated. In the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the interest of justice would be served by disposing of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to acquire the land of the petitioners only after following due process of law, if otherwise required absolutely.

¶9

5) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to acquire the land of the petitioners only after following the due process of law if otherwise required absolutely. No order as to costs.

¶10

6) Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶11

____________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM Date:24.04.2014 Gk.

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.4939 OF 2004

¶14

Date:24.04.2014.

¶15

Gk.

Meraka Suryanarayana v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meraka Suryanarayana v. The District Collector

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

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

Sri Saragadam Sivalakshmi, Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Visakhapatnam

B. Gnanaprakash S/o Isack Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Chakali Peddanna, Vs Govt. of a.P.rep.by its Secretary, Revenue (Assn.Iv)