Disposed

Thota Pitchaiah, W.G.Dist., and Anr. v. the State of a.P.,Land Acquisition, Guntur Dist., and 13 Otrs.

Telangana HC17 Jul 2018WP/14480/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the non-payment of land compensation due to title disputes, the Court directed the Collector to refer the matter to the competent authority for resolution under Section 64 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, ensuring petitioners' objections are considered.

What did the court decide?

The Collector is directed to refer the matter to the competent authority for resolution of title dispute and payment of compensation within four weeks.

Thota Pitchaiah, W.G.Dist., and Anr. Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

Writ Petition No.14480 of 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners seeking verbatim the following relief/ s:

¶5

‘…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, questioning the action of the 3^rd respondent in not furnishing the award notice under Section 38(2) of the Act and also not referring the matter to authority constituted under Section 52 of the Act inspite of the petitioners representation dated 28.03.2017 in connection with the petitioner lands situated in Sy.No.373 (Ac.2.21 gts), Sy.No.381 (Ac.2.11 gts), Sy.No.382 (Act.0.17 gts), Sy.No.384 (Act.1.23 gts) situated at Peda Ravigudem Village, Kukunuru Mandal, West Godavari District inspite of the ROR appeal pending before the 4^th respondent without showing the petitioner name in the Land Acquisition Notification dt.22.09.2016 and trying to pay the compensation amounts in favour of the respondents 6 to 14 and also without following the provisions of Section 76 & 77 and 52 and 64 of Land Acquisition Act 2013 and without issuing any notice and without passing the award and without considering the objections of the petitioner is illegal and void and opposed to Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to refer the matter to the authorities constituted under Section 52 of the Act by depositing the entire compensation amount in respect of the land in question and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

¶6

I have heard the submissions of Sri P.V. Krishnamachary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, of the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents 1 to 5, of Sri N. Ramu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 & 8; and of Sri K. Sarath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 9,10 & 12. I have perused the material record.

¶7

The petitioners herein and the unofficial respondents are the rival claimants in respect of the compensation that is payable for the subject acquired lands. It is an admitted fact that after the filing of this writ petition, an Award vide Award No.23/ 2016-17, dated 08.03.2017, has been passed. However, the issue of payment of compensation was kept in hold because of

¶8

¶9

MSRM,J WP_14480_2017

¶10

the dispute with regard to the title over the subject lands and the rival claims made in respect of the compensation payable.

¶11

Learned Government Pleader, on written instructions, dated 20.06.2018, a copy of which is placed on record, would submit that in view of the dispute with regard to title over the subject lands, action is being taken by the Collector to refer the matter to the competent authority for resolution of the dispute with regard to title and payment of compensation in respect of the subject lands.

¶12

Under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, any person interested and who has not accepted the Award, is entitled to submit his written objections to the Collector, requiring the matter to be referred to the competent authority for determination by the said authority. As per the proviso appended to the above Section, the Collector shall, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the application/ objections, make a reference to the appropriate authority. As per the further proviso appended to the Section, in the event the Collector fails to make a reference within the period so specified, the applicant may directly apply to the authority requesting to direct the Collector to make a reference to facilitate adjudication of the dispute by the authority.

¶13

In view of the submissions of the learned Government Pleader and the provisions of the Act, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Collector to make a reference as now stated before this Court, however, reserving liberty to the petitioners to submit their objections to the Collector, for reference of the matter to the competent authority, in the event the Collector fails to make a reference to the competent authority, as now stated by the learned Government Pleader. The Collector shall inform the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondents within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order about the reference made by him to the competent authority for resolution of the dispute under Section 64 of the Act. On the failure of the

¶14

¶15

MSRM,J WP_14480_2017

¶16

Collector to give information as afore-stated, the petitioners are at liberty to secure a copy of the Award from the authority concerned and apply for reference as contemplated under law.

¶17

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶19

____________________________ M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

¶20

17.07.2018 Vjl

Thota Pitchaiah, W.G.Dist., and Anr. v. the State of a.P.,Land Acquisition, Guntur Dist., and 13 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thota Pitchaiah, W.G.Dist., and Anr. v. the State of a.P.,Land Acquisition, Guntur Dist., and 13 Otrs.

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

Gopina Venkateswara Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Its Principal

Y.M.V. Ramana, Krishna District and 17 Oth Vs Managing Director, Apgenco, Hyderabad and 2 Oth

Gopathi Dudaiah, Warangal Dist and 2 Others Vs Secretary, Revenue Dept., Hyd and 3 Others

V. Sai Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Venkatanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C.v.Vishwanatha Reddy Vs The ReVenue Divisional Officer