Allowed

Bollapalli Shankar v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC8 Sept 2016WP/30352/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petitioners sought compensation and benefits under the R & R Act, 2013 for lands acquired in 1982 without authority action on their representations. The High Court directed respondents to consider these representations within four weeks and communicate the decision within a week. The petition was disposed with a direction to the respondents to act accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider representations dated 16.08.2016 and 17.08.2016 within four weeks and communicate written decision within one week thereafter.

Bollapalli Shankar Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by… — RTI and Transparency | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

¶2

W.P. No. 30352 of 2016

¶3

DATE: 08.09.2016

¶4

Between:

¶5

Bollapalli Shankar and eight others .. Petitioners And The State of Telangana and four others .. Respondents

2 SKK,J

WP_30352_2016

O R D E R: -

The main grievance of the writ petitioners is that in spite of the fact that they made representations dated 16.08.2016 and 17.08.2016 requesting the authorities to award compensation as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 along with other benefits in respect of their lands acquired by the Government in the year 1982 admeasuring various extents in different survey numbers situated in Jellipalli village Shivar of Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District, respondent Nos.2 to 5 have neither considered their representations nor paid compensation.

¶10

The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 have submitted that they will consider the representations dated 16.08.2016 and 17.08.2016 of the petitioners within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶11

Keeping in view the averments made in the writ affidavit and the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the

¶12

3 SKK,J

¶13

WP_30352_2016

¶14

representations dated 16.08.2016 and 17.08.2016 said to have been filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate decision that may be taken in writing to the petitioners within a period of one week thereafter. It is needless to mention that if the petitioners are still aggrieved by the action or inaction of the respondents, they may approach the appropriate forum.

¶15

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed

¶16

of. No order as to costs.

¶17

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶18

_____________________ SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J

¶19

08.09.2016

¶20

bcj

Bollapalli Shankar v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bollapalli Shankar v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

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

M.A. Aziz, Vs the State of Telangana

Gundala Sarojanamma, Vs The National High Way Authority of India

Visakhapatnam Cargo Handling Private Workers Vs The Union of India

Yata Hanumantha Reddy S/o Ram Reddy Vs Syndicate Bank

Pinnemsetty Venkata Satish Vs Union of India. Rep. by its Director. Financial Intelligence

Marisetti Vanaja Vs The Union of India