Disposed

Savalam Venkappa v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Apr 2019WP/7703/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-payment of land compensation. It directed the Land Acquisition Officer to consider claims of both the petitioner and the 5th respondent as interested persons. If the officer cannot decide, a reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act is mandatory.

What did the court decide?

The Land Acquisition Officer must consider claims of both interested persons; if unable to determine compensation, make a reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.

Savalam Venkappa Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No.7703 of 2019

¶2

O R D E R:

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents 1 to 3 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.4.

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 3^rd respondent in not paying the compensation to the petitioner for acquiring his land to an extent of Ac.1.14 gts in Sy.No.61/2 situated at Madharam Village, Mulakapalli Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, for the purpose of construction of Seetharama Project, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

The petitioner asserts that his name was shown as possessor in the notification issued under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act’) on 19.01.2018. However, the 5^th respondent is approaching the Land Acquisition Officer claiming compensation with respect to the subject land. Therefore, the petitioner apprehends that the compensation would be paid to the 5^th respondent ignoring his claim.

¶6

Learned Government Pleader has placed on record the instructions, wherein it is stated that out of the land to an extent of Acs.110.27 gts, for the land to an extent of Acs.93.27½ gts, an award was passed, but for the balance extent of

¶7

CKR, J W.P.No.7703 of 2019

¶8

¶9

land of Acs.17.00 ½ gts, which is the subject matter of the notification, no award has been passed and that the 5^th respondent is the pattadar of the land to an extent of Acs.1.14 gts in Sy.No.61/2, out of which, an extent of Ac.0.21 gts is only acquired for the purpose of Seetharama Lift Irrigation Project and that as per the revenue records, the interested persons are the petitioner as well as the 5^th respondent.

¶10

Having regard to the aforesaid instructions, as on date, admittedly, no award has been passed with respect to the subject land. Therefore, in the process of passing of the award, the Land Acquisition Officer shall take into consideration the respective claims of the petitioner as well as the 5^th respondent, who were shown as interested persons in the subject land, conduct enquiry and determine the compensation. If the Land Acquisition Officer is unable to arrive at the conclusion in payment of the compensation, necessary reference under Section 64 of the Act should be made to decide the said dispute.

¶11

Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶12

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶13

________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶14

¶15

12^th April, 2019

Savalam Venkappa v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savalam Venkappa v. The State of Telangana

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

G.Deepak Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Gopagalla Gopal Vs The State of Telangana

Sri TagasirapuVenkata Siva Naidu Vs Union of India

K. Kumari Vs Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation

Bathini Raj Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Pattana Padmashali Seva Sangham Vs The State of Telangana