Disposed

Mr. Kota Anantha Reddy, v. The Union of India, Rep. its Secretary

Telangana HC16 Sept 2016WP/31210/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the non-disposal of his objection petition regarding low compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The Court directed the District Collector to dispose of the petition with a hearing within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Collector, Warangal to consider the objection petition dated 23.8.2016 after hearing and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Mr. Kota Anantha Reddy, Vs The Union of India, Rep. its… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

[Special Original Jurisdiction]

¶3

FRIDAY THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016

¶4

PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 31210 OF 2016

¶6

Between:

¶7

Kota Anantha Reddy … Petitioner
V/s.
The Union of India
Represented by its Secretary
Department of Ministry of Road Transport
& Highways, New Delhi & Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M. Venkata Rama Rao

¶9

Counsel for the Respondents: Addl.Solicitor General for R1 & R3 Sri S.S.Varma for R-2 GP for Land Acquisition for R4 & R5

¶10

The court made the following:

¶11

[order follows]

¶12

¶13

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 31210 OF 2016

¶15

O R D E R :

¶16

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking mandamus

¶17

to declare the action of fourth and fifth respondents in not disposing

¶18

the petitioner’s objection petition/representation dated 23/8/2016

¶19

submitted to the fourth and fifth respondents as illegal, arbitrary and

¶20

violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India,

¶21

apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and to pass

¶22

such other suitable orders as this Court may deems fit and proper in

¶23

the circumstances of the case.

¶24

learned Additional Solicitor General for Respondent Nos.1 and 3,

¶25

Sri S.S.Varma, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2

¶26

and Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for Respondent Nos.

¶27

4 and 5.

¶28

It is an admitted case that land acquisition award has been

¶29

passed and deposited in the account of the petitioner. The grievance

¶30

¶31

of the petitioner is that the award amount is not adequate in terms of

¶32

the value of the land. For the said purpose, he filed objection

¶33

petition/representation under section 64 of the Right to Fair

¶34

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

¶35

and Re-Settlement Act, 2013 [Act No.30 of 2013, w.e.f. 1-1-2014] {for

¶36

brevity ‘The Act’}. However, since the authority under section 51 is

¶37

not in existence, the representation of the petitioner has not been

¶38

disposed of.

¶39

It is noted that, the representation referred to above made

¶40

by the petitioner to the fourth and fifth respondents for the purpose

¶41

of consideration, has not been decided. Section 3-G [5] of the Act

¶42

comes into play and sub-clause [5] of 3-G provides that if the amount

¶43

determined by the competent authority under sub-section [1] or

¶44

sub-section [2] is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount

¶45

shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the

¶46

arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.

¶47

¶48

As submitted by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3

¶49

that the District Collector is an ex-officio arbitrator under section

¶50

3-G [5] of the Act, therefore, the said respondent has to decide the

¶51

objection petition/representation made by the petitioner. Since the

¶52

petitioner has already made representation dated 23/8/2016 to the

¶53

respondent No.4 District Collector, Warangal to take call and

¶54

appoint arbitrator to decide the objection petition/representation

¶55

made by the petitioner. Therefore, it would be proper to direct

¶56

respondent No.4 District Collector, Warangal to consider the

¶57

representation dated 23/8/2016 made by the petitioner.

¶58

Keeping in view, the averments made in the affidavit filed in

¶59

support of the petition and submission of the counsel for the parties,

¶60

I hereby direct the respondent No.4-District Collector, Warangal to

¶61

dispose of the objection petition/representation dated 23/8/2016

¶62

made by the petitioner after affording reasonable opportunity of

¶63

hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and

¶64

in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks, from the date

¶65

¶66

of receipt of a copy of this order. I hereby make it clear that the

¶67

orders passed on the objection petition/representation dated

¶68

23/8/2016 shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week

¶69

thereafter.

¶70

In view of the above direction, the writ petition is disposed

¶71

of at the stage of admission. No costs.

¶72

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this

¶73

writ petition shall stand closed.

¶74

___________________________________
JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT.

¶75

16/09/2016 I s L

¶76

¶77

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

¶78

WRIT PETITION NO. 31210 OF 2016

¶79

Date: 16/09/2016 Circulation No. Court Master: I s L

Mr. Kota Anantha Reddy, v. The Union of India, Rep. its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Kota Anantha Reddy, v. The Union of India, Rep. its Secretary

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

Pusala Chandra Sekhar, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its PrI. Secretary

Ganiga Chenna Kesavulu Vs a. Y. Reddy

Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited(Bsnl), Vs The Commissioner forEmployees Compensation Act,1923

Pikkili Srinivas, Vs The Intelligence Officer

Challa Janardhana Rao. Vs Union of India.

Smt.v.Parvatamma W/o v.Ananthaiah Vs The State of Telangana