Disposed

Bhagwandas.Karva, S/o. Kesarmal Karva v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its

Telangana HC10 Dec 2015WP/35661/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent authority to pay compensation for acquired properties. In the absence of a counter affidavit, the court accepted the petitioners' plea of non-payment and directed negotiations to fix compensation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to negotiate and fix compensation within two months and communicate the decision in writing.

Bhagwandas.Karva, S/o. Kesarmal Karva Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.35661 OF 2015

¶3

DATED:10-12-2015

¶4

Between: Bhagwandas Karva and others … Petitioners And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat Hyderabad and another … Respondents

¶5

… Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: Mr. Satyannarayana Murthy, for Mr. S. Ravinder Reddy COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1: A.G.P. for Municipal Administration

¶6

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

This writ petition is filed with the grievance that respondent No.2 has not been paying compensation in respect of the petitioners’ premises bearing H.Nos.2-3-57/11, 2-3-96, 12-3-36, 2-6-83/1, 2-6- 84, 2-3-91, 92, 93 and 94, 2-3-96, 2-3-159, 2-3-88, 2-3-159, 2-3-140, 2-3-38, 2-3-136, 2-42/52, 2-3-87, 2-3-157, 176, 177, 2-6-58, 2-3-154, 155, 2-3-157, 2-3- 166, 167, 2-3-97, 2-3-98, 2-4-37, 2-3-51, 2.3-169/1, 2-6-81, 2-3-87, 2-3-211, 212, 2-3-180, 182, 183, 1-5-74, 1-5-73, and 1-5-75, situated at Kaman Road, Karimnagar District, which were acquired for the purpose of widening road.

¶9

Though the case was adjourned on earlier occasion for filing counter affidavit, respondent No.2 has not filed counter affidavit. The petitioners averred that respondent No.2 has initiated the process of road widening to the extent of 80 feet in the Municipal Corporation area and a meeting was convened in this regard during which the petitioners and various owners of the properties have conveyed their no objection for widening of the road to the extent of 80 feet as per the Master Plan. When contrary to the said understanding, respondent No.2 has started demolishing the houses beyond 80 feet, some of the petitioners along with others have filed W.P. No.14220 of 2011 wherein this Court granted an interim direction to respondent No.2 not to demolish the structures of the petitioners for road widening beyond 80 feet. Thereafter, the petitioners have caused legal notices dt.08.10.2015, 12.10.2015 and 15.10.2015 on respondent No.2 for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per Sq. yard.

¶10

The grievance of the petitioners is that having acquired the properties, compensation has not been paid. In the absence of any counter affidavit, the said plea of the petitioners deserves to be accepted. Having acquired the properties, respondent No.2 cannot avoid payment of compensation.

¶11

Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitioners’

¶12

request for payment of compensation. It shall hold negotiations with the petitioners and fix the compensation within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioners in writing within the said period. The petitioners shall be entitled to avail further legal remedies, if they feel aggrieved by the decision of respondent No.2.

¶13

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.45816 of 2015 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶14

_______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10-12-2015 bnr

Bhagwandas.Karva, S/o. Kesarmal Karva v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwandas.Karva, S/o. Kesarmal Karva v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its

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

Mr. T.V.K. Murthy S/o Sri. T.G.K. Murthy Vs The State of Telangana - Rep. by its Principal

Smt. Bolukonda Kalavathi, W/o.Late Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Kareem Khan Vs Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation

M.Damodar Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

T. Anil Kumar, Vs The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration

Borogalla Mallaiah Sio Yellaiah, Vs The State of Telangana