Allowed

Bodhi Venkata Lakshmi v. The District Collector

Telangana HC10 Oct 2014WP/8575/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order that restricted land acquisition compensation due to the husband already receiving payment. Finding the order arbitrary and violative of natural justice for lack of hearing, the Court set it aside and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order restricting compensation to 0.12 cents; remanded the matter to the respondents to pay compensation for the remaining 2.88 cents after giving notice and hearing.

Bodhi Venkata Lakshmi Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No. 8575 of 2009

¶2

Dated: 10.10.2014

¶3

Between:

¶4

Bodhi Venkatalakshmi W/o.Moola Swamy.

¶5

…..Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District and three others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. V. SESHA SAI

¶11

WRIT PETITION No. 8575 of 2009

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “…… to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not giving compensation to full extent of Ac.3.00 and restricting the compensation to Ac.0.12 cents vide the impugned order of the 2^nd respondent in Rc.No.19/2007/SA dt.8.9.2008 passed behind the back of the petitioner without giving audience to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in proceedings No.Rc.No.19/2007/SA, dt.8.9.2008 restricting compensation to Ac.0.12 cents as against Ac.3.00 for which the petition is entitled by directing respondents 1 and 2 to pay compensation to the entire extent of Ac.3.00 when the petitioner is holding by virtue of D Form patta pursuant to the directions of the

¶14

Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.3748 of 2008 ………”

¶15

2. Heard Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents, apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶16

3. According to the petitioner, the revenue authorities granted D-Form patta in her favour in respect of land to an extent of

¶17

Ac.3.00 cents in Survey No.369/2B of Rajala Agraharam Village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, vide proceedings DC.No.175/2002/A, dated 05.09.2002. The 1^st respondent issued a notification for resumption of the subject land for allotment of the same to Navy for establishment of Naval Alternative Operations Base and to that effect, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner herein. Subsequently, the authorities took the possession of the property also. The petitioner herein earlier filed W.P.No.3748 of 2008 seeking a direction to the respondents herein to pay compensation or exgratia. This Court, by way of an order, dated 22.02.2008 disposed of the said writ petition, permitting the petitioner

¶18

herein to file a written representation before the 1^st respondent and this Court also directed the 1^st respondent-District Collector, Visakhapatnam, to consider and dispose of the said written representation, within a period of four weeks. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner submitted a written representation to the 1^st respondent, and the same was forwarded to the 2^nd respondent-the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Islamic Unit-II, Elamanchili, Visakhapatnam District. The 2^nd respondent herein passed an order vide proceedings Rc.No.19/2007/SA, dated.08.09.2008, stating that the petitioner is eligible to receive compensation only for an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, out of total extent of assigned land on the ground that her husband was already paid compensation for Ac.4.88 cents in Survey No.448/3.

¶19

4. In the above background and calling in question the validity and legal acceptability of the said order passed by the 2^nd respondent, v i d e Rc.No.19/2007/SA, dated.08.09.2008, restricting the compensation only to an extent of Ac.0.12 cents of land as against Ac.3.00 cents, the writ petition came to be filed.

¶20

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in restricting

¶21

compensation only to an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, instead of paying for the entire extent of Ac.3.00 cents, is highly arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. It is further contended that the petitioner herein married one Moola Swamy on 29.02.1992 and out of the said wedlock, she begot one daughter and two sons and due to certain differences, the petitioner herein along with her children is staying away from her husband since 1999 as per the decision of the village elders. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per law, each person can hold Ac.5.00 of dry land and the entire family cannot be taken as one unit. It is also contended that the authorities concerned assigned the subject land as long back as on 05.09.2002, after holding socio economic survey. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent herein passed the impugned order, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶22

6. Per contra, it is vehemently argued by the learned Government Pleader that there is neither illegality nor irregularity in the impugned action, as such, the present

¶23

writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further argued by the learned Government Pleader that the authorities are justified in restricting the compensation only for an extent of

¶24

Ac.0.12 cents, in view of the payment already made in respect of the land assigned in favour of the husband of the petitioner herein.

¶25

7. In the light of the above pleadings, submissions and contentions, now the issue which this Court is called upon to answer in the present writ petition is:

¶26

Whether the order passed by the 2^nd respondent herein, restricting the compensation only for Ac.0.12 cents of land, is sustainable and tenable?

¶27

8. The material made available before this Court shows that the Revenue authorities granted patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of an extent of Ac.3.00 cents in the year 2002 in Survey No.369/SB of Rajala Agraharam Village, Rambili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and that the petitioner herein got married on 29.02.1992 and blessed with one daughter and two sons. The only ground assigned by the 2^nd respondent

¶28

for restricting the compensation for Ac.0.12 cents is that the husband of the petitioner, Sri Moola Swamy, was already paid compensation for the land admeasuring Ac.4.88 cents situated in Survey No.448/3 and that only a maximum extent of Ac.5.00 could be assigned in favour of one family. In the instant case, obviously after holding socio economic survey, the authorities granted D-Form patta in favour of the petitioner in the year 2002. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent authorities resumed the subject land for a public purpose and not on the ground of violation of conditions of assignment. It is also an admitted fact that the authorities resumed the entire assigned land of Ac.3.00. It is the case of the petitioner herein that herself and her husband are living separately since 1999 due to certain differences and the children are with her only and the same is not denied by the respondents by filing counter-affidavit and it is also the case of the petitioner that the income from this land was the only source of livelihood for them. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 2^nd respondent passed the impugned order without giving any notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and this aspect is also not denied by the respondents. A perusal of the impugned order also does not indicate the issuance of prior notice

¶29

and opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. In the considered opinion of this Court, the same is in total violation of principles of natural justice. All the above aspects, which have been raised in the writ affidavit, are required to be assessed and analyzed by the respondent authorities by giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶30

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order passed by the 2^nd re s p o n d e n t vide proceedings Rc.No.19/2007/SA, dated.08.09.2008, to the extent of refusing to pay the compensation for the land admeasuring Ac.2.88 cents situated in Survey No.369/SB of Raja Agraharam Village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, and the matter is remanded to the said extent only for fresh consideration by the respondent authorities after giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioner herein. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The out come of such exercise shall also be communicated to the petitioner. No order as to costs.

¶31

10. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶32

A.V. SESHA SAI, J

¶33

10^th October 2014

¶34

mar

Bodhi Venkata Lakshmi v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bodhi Venkata Lakshmi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Anandi Bai Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Sri G.S.P Veera Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

G.Rama Murthy Vs a.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh

Mohd. Yousuf Ali Vs Setwin represented by its Managing Director

J. Ratna Rao, Vs Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative

Bynapalli Chinna Thimmaiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh