Dismissed

The a.P.Mineral Dev.Corp.Ltd.,Rep.by Vc.Andmd.,Hyderabad. v. Kurram Shiva Shankar , Bangaru Shiva SHANKAR,R.R.DIST.,AND50

Telangana HC15 Jul 2022WA/79/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In the absence of representation by the appellant, the High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging a Single Judge’s order directing the State and District Collector to verify land acquisition compensation claims of respondents within three months.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. No costs to the respondents.

The a.P.Mineral Dev.Corp.Ltd.,Rep.by Vc.Andmd.,Hyderabad… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE S'] TELANGANA AT H YDEJfJE DOF

¶2

F5l?ly rHE F|FTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND rWCrurY rWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF

¶5

rHE H.N,BLE ^r-.^{rrt+['J:::='# ::il:"}

¶6

WRIT APPEA L NO: 79 0F 2013

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 1 of the Letters patent against the order passed in W.p No. 18990 of 2o.l2 dt. 26.0( ).2012. on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

TheAp Mineral Devel cnairman Cu"a;;r;;ffi3l3it^{corporation Limited,} Hyderabad, Rep. by its Vice AND ...AppELLANT/srH REspoNDENT

¶10

Kurram Shiva Shankr ,,'^{Years, o-cc:Businesir@ Bangarushiva shankar,s/o. Danaiah, Aged} 28 z. t3angari Sarvaiah. S/r

¶11

i$gi;;i3t;;gm:ti+r,r*;1',1,,:nhli[.,,",,,"

¶12

,- #fiui fiffi

¶13

#gffitrjffi#g, ma. wo Narsimha ageO +b Veaii"6cc-:' Xgricurture

¶14

Banoari Brk ch.^3i ;;;y;-,^"i,,rapathi.S/o^Maisaiah. Aoer, 6n j'?,,"

¶15

i,'#iiif.ffi +Ue,'mtm,-gdb"i1i-?,:#!1i:r' # A::,j. L:^dS " h S/oH a n m a i a r, Xsi " i "o'M ri]r& Jii; ,.fl?iflyll r|." ;X R::yj:^{xamuruS/o Ha"r"irnl iJjjs_yj,} ii i:ll?ll1Pi3r,r^s{";p,i.1"1 qiil,i.{{vffi !i; ff.,,j;,,,y[ 48. i;;il::;: [:fl.y.rp/o;pgcnaian,^A-qeo 6_s V".: # ;::I,j3,?,Ashok,S/o_^pochaiarr, ns;Jlo"V",'irt;o"",^Rgricutture. ;; A:::y L:^{r: im} la,^{g/.o yenraia} n,^{"R-iei"osV^?,uc^c,Asricu ttu re.} rs' o cc : As ri c u I t u re

¶16

;Y LijiST.[11i,]H,X P1:--te,, ei^;n,_ng "1"^{i i ?"} "7 42Kandi-kaniio;,;lif ffi |i6;S/"R;il;i,*h:iEE!'a8?'f^{nl31'1Y,f,n,.,",nr,"}

¶17

if Y:f lf ti^{;J#n;:3,J'13#:l][:} h"tr.?^{j:"yea rs occ: ng,icuiiuiJ'-' -} jr ;:f,yJ1-r.ychamma, wro p"tJ, l.rr,ri;;,",;:'"^uccr Aoric,rt,,ra ;30:[1li:$:]aier,T:rwJ."_i[,l:l,l'iJj;tE".i#JH:,ooic:-Asricurture u-o,n, \J^cc: agrrcutture.

¶18

;; A;:Ifl,::::ga^{yeil_,_,,, .r,urvrarsarah.} Aoert 6A, _, .,Jd,uasa. uhrnna Bikshap,,,i S)"Hr,rulir"il;E.lrfirV"ri;t tT.!lLr,l,E,**.

¶19

,*r(#l i'" R/o Bandaraviryala Vrilage, Hayathnagar Mandat, Ranga Reddy

¶20

tr{#tr1;!,;t16f ffi,'n?t-t*;;#:;-il'"r.':'

¶21

,, iffi1?,ffi:1,fl:l'j:, Revenue orricer, Hayathnasar Mandar, Ranga Reddy

¶22

fi,fi fi B:lff l,#:?ir,5.,,.i,f f iTg511"r1li;:::::::".Tffi :;;:'

¶23

that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Hi gh court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dr. 26.6.2013 made in wP' No 18990 of t 1"' 2012, pending disposar orl.,",n^]],.-- ^'-" counser ror rhe Apperra;,::"-:t::#Xfi;:I"^r,_or pREsENr) Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 47: SRI E. VENKAT REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos. 48 to S0: Gp FOR LAND ACQUISIT|ON The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

) )

¶25

THE ON'BLE TH CHIEF IUSTICE UIIAL B AND

¶26

HEH N{ EPAILI W.A.No. 79 of 2013

¶27

IUDGMENT,a, h n,,n't). tut t,, t t"u= t,,t tlt,^,,,

¶28

There is no representarion on behalf of the appellant-

¶29

Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development C-olporation Limited. On the last occasion also i.e., on 17.06.2022, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant.

¶30

2 \7e find that the presenr appeal is directed against order 1n dated 26.06.2AD passed by the learned Single Judge \fl.P.No.18990 o[ 2aD filed byrespondents No.1 to 47.

¶31

Respondents No.1 to 47 had complained before rhe C-oun that they were the assignees of the subject land, v4rich was taken over bythe State Govemment for entn$tment to the appellant, but they were not paid any ex pralirr.

¶32

After going through the materials on record, leamed Single Judge^{disposed of the writ petitiondirecting} the State (respondent No.a8) and the District C-ollector, Ranga Reddy District

¶33

..)..

¶34

(respondent No.49) to verify the claim of the writ petitioners and thereafter, to do the needful within a period of three montlx. This was a direction issued ro rhe Srare and the Distnct Collector of Ranga ReddyDisrict and as can be seen, no gdevance can be made against such order passed bythe leamed Single Judge.

¶35

rVe are astonished rhat the appellant being a public sector undertaking has chosen to file the appeal and thereafter, failed to pursue the same in right eamest.

¶36

Therefofe, we dismiss the appeal. No costs.

¶37

sequel, miscellaneous peririons, pending if anr, stand, dir_ir:d.

¶38

ro,

¶39

t''tI;,t'?f;it['31[ XA^' //rRuE coPY,

¶40

-lt*t'"r'f^tfi

¶41

,,i'nfe:iry;*i'e'tqf SB ?tLCr

"""':".:::::"'"'^

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1StO7t2O2Z

dE STA i.."
o,+
<br><br>a
U 13 [tr 2m '8 ))
,.*
'..').{ .gl
a.!'i;ri{tct'
JUDGMENT

¶46

WA.No.79 of 2013

¶47

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL

¶48

@)
-o+<br><br>tq2'
5\e^

¶49

WITHOUT COSTS

The a.P.Mineral Dev.Corp.Ltd.,Rep.by Vc.Andmd.,Hyderabad. v. Kurram Shiva Shankar , Bangaru Shiva SHANKAR,R.R.DIST.,AND50

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The a.P.Mineral Dev.Corp.Ltd.,Rep.by Vc.Andmd.,Hyderabad. v. Kurram Shiva Shankar , Bangaru Shiva SHANKAR,R.R.DIST.,AND50

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.M.P.M. Hashmi Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Knr Constructions Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner(Ct) Audit

M/s. Knr Constructions Limited Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner(Ct)

Uma Narayan Borbande Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

M/s. Ekta Gateway Towers LLP Vs A.S.N. Raju and 6others

Sondi Veeraiah Vs The Special Deputy Collector