Allowed

Sri Koudagani Rajender v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC26 Apr 2023WP/10963/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that authorities cannot delay paying enhanced compensation awarded by a reference court, causing undue hardship. It directed the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the decretal amount in the court credit of the execution petition within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to deposit decretal amount in court credit of E.P. No.03 of 2022 within three months or decree modification.

Sri Koudagani Rajender Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[^32s6 ]

¶3

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY.^{THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE^{SRIJUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEERKUMAR} WRIT PETITI^{ONNO:10953 0F 2023}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri Koudagani^{Raiender, S/o Late Mohan Rao, Hindu, aged 60 years'}

¶9

Sri Ustem^{Narsaiah, S/oPocham' Hindu' aged 44 years.}

¶10

Sri Ammula^{Lingaiah, S/o Raya Komuraiah, Hindu, aged 49 years'}

¶11

Sri Koudagani Snjeeva^{Rao, S/o Rajaiah,Hindu,aged60 years,} All R/o Poosala Village,^{Sulthanabad Mandal, Karimnagar District'}

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The State of^{Telangana, Rep. by its Princrpal Secretary, RevenueDepartment} (LA). Secretariat. Hyderabad,^{TelanganaState.}

¶15

2 Project The Land Acquisition^{Officer-Cum-SDcrLA qnitrSripada} -Yellampalli nrmaounOani Now attached^{to RDO,Peddapelli, PeddapelliDistrict} Telangina State-505'l^72.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith,the High court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate^{writ, orderor directionparticularlyone in the} natureofWritofMandamus'declaringtheactionof2ndinnotpayingthe compensation^{aS per the orders dated17,o8.2o19in L.A.o.P.No'3of 2014 (Award} No'12t2011-12, daled^{21.11.2011) on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at Peddapalli,} Peddapalli District,^{Telanganastate, as illegalandarbitraryandviolative of Article} 14, 16 and 300-4 of^{TheConstitutionof lndia, and consequentty DIRECT the2"d} respondenttopaythecompensationamountforthwithtothepetitionersorto

¶18

t L

¶19

¶20

deposit in the court as^per the^{orders dated 17.08.2019in L A O P'No3 of 2014} (AwardNo.1212011-12,dated21.11.2011)onthefileofSeniorCivilJudge'at Peddapalli, Peddapalli,District.^{Telangana State, in the interest of justice}

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶22

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petrtion,the High Court may be pleasedto} DIRECT the 2nd^{respondent to pay the compensation amount forthwithto the} petitioners or to deposit^{in the court as per the orders dated17 08 2019in} L A.O.P.No.3 of^{2014 (Award No 1212011-12.dated 21 11 2011)on the file of} SeniorCivilJudge,atPeddapallr,PeddapalliDistrict,TelanganaState,pending disposal of the^{writ petition,in the interest of lustice'}

¶23

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRIP. VEN KANNA}

¶24

Counsel for the^{Respondents:GP FOR LANDACQUISITION}

¶25

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.10963 of 2o23

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents.

¶29

This Writ Perition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not paying the compensation as per the order and decree dated 17.08.2019 in L.A.O.p.No.03 of 2014 (Award No. 12l2O11-12, dated 2l.lL.2}1l) on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli District, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶30

It is the case of the petitioners herein that their lands were acquired by the respondents and an Award No.l2/2011-12, d,ated 2I.1l.2Oll was passed under Section 1l of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,^.the Act, f g94,) and aggrieved thereby, the petitioners herein sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, and the sarne was referred to ttre Court of Senior Civil Judge, peddapalli and the sanne was taken on file as L.A.O.p.No.O3 of 2Ol4 and finally, the sarne was disposed of by an order, dated tZ.Og.2Olg enhancing the compensation.

¶31

It is contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader for l,and Acquisition that an appeal was filed against the

¶32

¶33

judgment and decrec, ciatccl 17.0[i.2019, in L.A.O.p.No.03 of '2O74 anci the same is uncler proces;s. I{owcver., :16 orr date, therc is no stay cf operation of the Cecrce granted by thc appellarc Court and the decree passed in the said L.A.O.p.No.03 of 20i4 is still in operation. In spit.. of the same, thc respondents have not paid compensation amount as enhanced by the reference Couit. 'Iherefore, the petitioners filed E.p.No. 3 of 2022 in L.A.O.p.No.O3 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civit Judge, peddapalli, seeking execrrtion of the decree passed by the reference Court. At that stage, Lhe petitioners approar:hed this Court by filing the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to respondents to deposit the decretal amoun t into the credit of E.p.No.03 of 2022.

¶34

Having regard to the above backdrop of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the authorities cannot take tleir own time to deposit the amounts which are already enhanced by the compcte nt Court. The inacticn of the respondents in paying the enhanced compensation amounts in time to the petitioners, who are already suffering from the loss of their lands, would make them to also suffer untold hardship and misery and run from pillar to post for gettirrg the enhanced compensation deposited and incur exp€nses for the same. They will also have to incur additional expenditure for approaching the Court for seeking the required relief. With the raising

¶35

¶36

¶37

inflation, the value of the money will also go down and the delayed pay.ment of the enhanced compensation will result in the compensation amount itself losing all^{the charm and utility. If} the petitioners or similarly situated^persons receive^the enhanced compensation within the time, they will be in a poSition to use that amount in some other investments and get some returns over the same.

¶38

Having regard to the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of and respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the decretal amount in terms of the order and decree, dated 17.Oa.2OI9, passed in L.A.O.P.No.03 of 2014 by the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, to the credit of E.P.No.O3 of 2022 in L.A.O.P.No.O3 of 2Ol4 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, as expediliously as possible, at any rate urithin a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the decree is not otherwise stayed as modified by the appellate Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this u'rit

¶40

pelition shall stand closed.

¶41

SD/.K.VENKAIAH

¶42

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To, The Land Acouisition Officer-Cum-SDC.LA.^{Unit, Sripada YellampalliProiect,} RimJounOam. Now attached to^{RDO, Peddapelli' Peddapelli District,} Telang''ana state-505^{1 72.}

¶44

2 One CC to SRI^{P. VENKANNA,Advocate} [OPUCI

¶45

3 Two CCs to GP for Land^{Acquisition, High Court for theState of Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶46

4 Two CD Copies

MP BS,/

j I

HIGH COURT

DATED:2610412023

9( 1
I 'a ORDER
.s
P.No.10963 of 2023
s*
0aotl
t-.<br>!q*

¶54

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

Sri Koudagani Rajender v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Koudagani Rajender 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

The Singareni Collieries Company Limited Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Janagama Yadamma Vs The State of Telangana

Ahmed Mujtaba Shareef, Vs The Joint Collector

Baddela Buddaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Buchireddy Ravinder Reddy Vs The Principal Secretary and 9 others

Nyalamadugu Shankaraiah Vs The State of Telangana