Disposed

Vikram Krishna Rao S/o. Subba Rao, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented

Telangana HC5 Dec 2018WP/12937/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two writ petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and the 2013 Act. Relying on a prior single-judge order, the Court directed respondents to determine and pay compensation for the petitioners' lands under the 2013 Act upon verification of ownership.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to determine compensation payable under the R.F.C. Land Acquisition Act 2013 and pay compensation on due verification of ownership and entitlement.

Vikram Krishna Rao S/o. Subba Rao, Vs The Government of… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos. 12937 of 2013 & 41876 of 2018

¶3

Date : 05.12.2018

¶4

Between:

¶5

Vikram Krishna Rao S/o Subba Rao doing cultivation R/o Pamidipadu Village Korisipadu Mandal Prakasam District & others

¶6

Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented District Collector Prakasam District at Ongole & others

¶9

Respondents

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶12

WRIT PETITION Nos. 12937 of 2013 & 41876 of 2018

¶13

COMMON ORDER:

¶14

These two writ petitions are filed praying to grant following reliefs:

¶15

WP 12937 of 2013:

¶16

“………to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Land Acquisition Proceedings including passing of the award No 7/2011-12 dated 18.7.2011 with regard to petitioners lands in Survey Nos 439/1, 439/2, 449/3, 450/1 etc situated at Pamidipadu (Phase I) Revenue Village, Korisipadu Mandal, Prakasam District without following due process of law and without giving us notice and without giving opportunity to participate in the enquiry as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Section 9 and 11 of Land Acquisition Act and in violation of well settled principles of natural justice………

¶17

WP 41876 of 2018

¶18

to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the land acquisition proceedings in respect of lands situated in Pamidipadu Village, Korisipadu Mandal, Prakasam District Andhra Pradesh in Survey Nos 525/1, 463/2, 513/3, 515/3, 461/3, 540/4, 676/3A, 513/3, 514/4, 511-3, 555-1 and 557-3B belonging to the Petitioners and trying to dispossess the Petitioners from their respective lands without following due process of law as arbitrary illegal without jurisdiction unconstitutional and in violation of well settled principles of natural justice and to pass…………”

¶19

Petitioners claim to be owners of different extents of land in

¶20

Pamidipadu village, Korisipadu mandal, Prakasam district. Their lands were sought to be acquired for public purposes under “Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

¶21

Resettlement Act, 2013” (Act 30 of 2013). Petitioners allege that without following due process as contemplated by the Act 30 of 2013, their lands were sought to be acquired and the same is illegal.

¶22

When the matters are taken up for consideration, learned senior counsel Sri Ganta Rama Rao, appearing for petitioners and learned Government Pleader agreed that the writ petitions can be disposed of in terms of the directions issued by learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No. 14358 of 2013 and batch dated 23.11.2016.

¶23

Learned single Judge of this Court considered W.P.Nos.14358, 14384 and 14385 of 2013 and by common order dated 23.11.2016 disposed of the writ petitions.

¶24

4.1. In W P No. 14358 of 2013 recording the submissions of learned counsel for petitioners therein that petitioners agreed for receiving compensation if paid under the Act 30 of 2013, the writ petition was disposed of without going into the merits of respective submissions.

¶25

Learned senior counsel for petitioners would submit that petitioners agreed for receiving compensation for the lands belonging to them which were sought for acquisition, if they are paid compensation under the Act 30 of 2013. The said submission is also accepted by learned Government Pleader.

¶26

In view of the same, writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to determine the compensation payable to the petitioners under the Act 30 of 2013 to the extent of lands belonging to them and pay compensation on due verification of their ownership and entitlement. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed.

¶27

__________________ P NAVEEN RAO,J

¶28

DATE:05-12-2018 TVK

¶29

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶30

WRIT PETITION Nos. 12937 of 2013 & 41876 of 2018

¶31

Date : 05.12.2018

Vikram Krishna Rao S/o. Subba Rao, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Krishna Rao S/o. Subba Rao, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented

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

N. Jagannadham Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh being

Murukuti Sreenivasulu , Srinivas Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Murukuti Venkateswarlu Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bogolu Seetha Rami Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. T.Koteswaramma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G. Pandurayya, Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.,(Tsspdcl)