Sri Anil Chandra Punetha, IAS., Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and ] Special Chief Secretary to State of Andhra Pradesh, Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents

¶8

The Court made the following:

¶9

¶10

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶11

CONTEMPT CASE No.397 OF 2015

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

By order dated 21.10.2014, W.P.No.932 of 2014 was disposed of directing the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration to take consequential steps as per the recommendations of Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 21.01.2012, and the District Collector, dated 24.02.2013, with reference to compensating the petitioner appropriately. Further, the Court granted six weeks time to take a decision. Alleging disobedience of the said direction, this Contempt Case is filed.

¶14

After filing of the Contempt Case, the respondents filed review petition to seek review of the order in the Writ Petition. The review petition was dismissed.

¶15

Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition placed on record a copy of the award dated 21.02.2018 passed in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act acquiring the land of the petitioner and stated that the compensation amount determined is deposited to the account of the petitioner.

¶16

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that original proposals were for payment of higher compensation, whereas now the subject land was treated as agricultural land and far less compensation is determined, though it is not an agricultural land and it is a commercial land.

¶17

¶18

However, as the issue of payment of appropriate compensation was not considered in the Writ Petition and direction was only to take consequential steps based on the recommendations, which recommendations are for acquiring the land of the petitioner, in contempt proceedings, the Court cannot go into the amount of compensation paid and status of the land as to whether it is agricultural land or non-agricultural land.

¶19

The Contempt Case is closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out her remedies, as available in law, on the issue of payment of appropriate compensation.

¶20

____________________
P. NAVEEN RAO, J
Date:09.03.2018
KH

G. Pyari, Kadapa Dist. v. Anil Chandra Punetha, I.a.S., Hyd and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

G. Pyari, Kadapa Dist. v. Anil Chandra Punetha, I.a.S., Hyd and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dodda Venkata Ratnam and Tripuramallu Gurunadham Vs State of a.P., Rep. by its Principal

R Sai Reddy Vs Prl.Secy., Dept., Home, Hyd., and 5 Others

Nellore Sudhakar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Md. Riazuddin Vs Smt.Challa Nirmala

Gandam Kumaraswamy Vs Smt. Thurapati Yellamma

P.Mruthyunjayam, Hyd Vs Vikas Raj, I.a.S., Hyd and Another