Allowed

Bajawada Vara Laxmi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principle

Telangana HC13 Apr 2017WP/6831/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed the Writ Petition challenging the non-disposal of a Representation regarding land compensation. Holding that the Award had not yet been passed, the Court permitted all parties to raise their claims before the 3rd Respondent under Act 30 of 2013.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was disposed of keeping it open to the petitioners as well as Respondent No.5 to raise their respective claims before Respondent No.3.

Bajawada Vara Laxmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.6831 OF 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India, for the following relief:

¶6

“declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent not disposing off Representation, dated 05.10.2015, when the 5^th respondent making attempts to dispose off the lands in an extent of Ac.35-33 Cents in R.S.No.1102/2, 1141/1, 1143/2, 1144/2, 1158, 1159/2, 1176/2, 1185/2 and 1187/2 situated at Buttaigudem Village & Mandal of West Godavari District, is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to dispose off the Representation Dated 05.10.2015.”

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

¶8

Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶9

In the present Writ Petition, the petitioners herein are disputing the right of respondent No.5 in receiving the compensation amount in respect of the subject properties. It is submitted by learned Government Pleader, on instructions, that the Award has not yet been passed in respect of the subject properties and it is open to the petitioners as well as respondent No.5 to raise their claims before the authorities under Act 30 of 2013.

¶10

Having regard to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be served if the petitioners as well as respondent No.5 are permitted to raise their claims before the

¶11

¶12

respondent authorities with regard to their right over the properties.

¶13

For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, keeping it open to the petitioners as well as respondent No.5 to raise their respective claims before respondent No.3 and it is open to respondent No.3 to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶14

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

__________________
A.V.SESHA SAI, J
APRIL 13, 2017
YVL

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.6831 OF 2017

¶19

Date: 13.04.2017

¶20

YVL

Bajawada Vara Laxmi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajawada Vara Laxmi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principle

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

Gandla Rajaiah, Vs State of Telangana

Aerupula Chandraiah Vs The State of Telangana

Pericherla Dharma Teja Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Srinivasulu Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.V.P. Naidu Vs The Divisional Co-operative Officer

Bollepalli Lakshmi Srinivasa Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh