Allowed

Padidala Sambaiah , Shivarao , Samba Siva Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Apr 2023WP/21696/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition invoking Article 226, petitioners challenged the inaction of the Special Dy. Collector in referring applications dated 01/08/2012 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector had referred the matter to a Civil Court which returned it lacking jurisdiction. The High Court directed the Collector to refer the matter to the Agent to Government for fixation of

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent No.3 to refer the matter to the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, for fixation of right compensation within four weeks.

Padidala Sambaiah , Shivarao , Samba Siva Rao Vs The… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 I

¶2

I I I I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:21696 OF 2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

Padidala Sambaiah @ Shivarao @ Samba Siva Rao, S/o. Muthaiah, Aged about 31 years,

¶10

Padidala Chinna Muthaiah, S/o. Narasaiah, Aged about 72yearc,

¶11

R. Muthaiah, S/o. Saibu, Aged about 57 years,

¶12

Ravulapenta Venkulu, S/o. Kothaiah, Aged about 73 years,

¶13

Yasa Nageswar Rao, S/o. Venkaiah, Aged about 70 years,

¶14

Bathula Venkateswarlu, S/o. Venkata Ramaiah, Aged about 59 years, All are agriculturists and residents of Thirumalapuram (V) Revenue Village, Manuguru Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District.

¶15

...'ET'T,ONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶18

The District Collector, Kothagudem, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District.

¶19

The Special Dy. Collector (LA) IPT & Railways, Khammam, Khammam District

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or directron more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the Special Dy. Collector (LA) IPT and Railways, Khammam, 3rd respondent herein, in not referring pelitioners applications daled 2110812012 filed u/S. 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1984 as illegal, arbitrary and against lo provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and consequently direct Special Dy. Collector, Khammam, 3rd respondent herein, to refer petitioners applications 2110812012 filed U/S. 1B of Land Acquisition Act, 1984 to appropriate Court expeditiously,

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct Special Dy. Collector (LA) IPT & Railways, Khammam, 3rd respondent herein, to refer petitioners applications 21-08-2012 filed u/S.^'18 of Land Acquisition Act,^'1984 to appropriate Court expeditiously, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R.R. KALYAN

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.21696 OF 2O2O

¶29

ORDEB:

¶30

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

¶31

The short issue that came up for consideration in this Writ Petition is as to whether the respondents are^justified in not making the reference under Scction 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act, 1894J, pursuant to the request made by the petitioners or not.

¶32

The facts of the case are that the land beionging to the petitioners^q,as acquired by the respondents under the provisions of the Act, 1a94, by passing ar-r Award I{o.4/201O-11, daled 22.72.2010 and in view of the rival claims for payment of compensation, the rnatter was referred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judgc, Kothagudern, under Section 30 of the Act, 1894, and after the said reference was answered, the petitioners herein made a request for referring the matter under Scction 18 of the Act, 1894, for fixation of right compensation and the same was referred by responclent No.3 herein to the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judgc, Kothagudem, under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, through letter bearing Rc.No.C/ l2/2OOa, dated

¶33

¶34

22.O1.2O13, and the said reference was returned by the competent Civil Court, on i2.O3.2014, with an endorsement, which reads as under:-

¶35

"Thc cause of action of the refcrence arose in Agency Ar-ca, as such this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference as per judgment in Civil Appeal 5030-5038 of 2OO4, dt.25.O9.f2 on the file of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of [ndia."

¶36

According to learned counsel for the petitioners, after the said reference was returned by the competent Civil Court, respondent No.3 herein instead of taking stcps for referring thc matter to the Agent to Government, who is competent authority, to decide the reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, in respect of the lands situated in agency area, failed to take any action and hence, the petitioners approachcd this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

¶37

The respondents have not filed any counter as on date. However, taking into consideration the fact that respondent No.3 has already taken a decision to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 and in fact, referred the matter to concerned Civil Court and the same was returned for want of^{jurisdiction,} it is obligatory on the part of respondent No.3 to refer the rnatter to the competent authority, to decide the matter under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, in respect of the land situated in agency area. But the same is not clone so far.

¶38

¶39

Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the fact that respondent No.3 has already taken a decision to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, the Writ Petition is allowed directing respondent No.3 to take steps for referring the matter under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, to the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, for Iixation of the right compensation, for which the petitioners are entitled to in respect ol the land belonging to them acquired under Award No.4/2O1O-11, dated 22.12.2010, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶40

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶41

SD/- MOHD.SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT-SEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CJ) SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To, 1 . The Principal Secretary, Revenue^{Department, The State of Telangana,} Secretanat, Hyderabad.

¶43

The District C6llector, Kothagudem,^{Bhadradri-Kothagudem District.} 3. The Special^{Dy. Collector(LA) IPT & Railways, Khammam, Khammam} District 4. One CC to SRI R.R.^{KALYAN,Advocate} [OPUC] 5. iwo CCs to GP^{FOR LANDACQUISITION,High Court for the State of} Telangana. IOUT] 6. Two CD Copies BN

SW LRT<

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810412023

ORDER

FJ
t <br>1 3 Iill nl ?ii23

¶49

WP.No.21696 of 2020

¶50

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶51

@*t^n Lt

Padidala Sambaiah , Shivarao , Samba Siva Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padidala Sambaiah , Shivarao , Samba Siva Rao 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. J. Pramod Reddy and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Shreenivas Muddu Vs The Chief Secretary to the Government of Telangana and 4 others

R.B. Jitender Raj Ranka, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of

Katta Raja Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Venkata Surender Reddy Desireddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sunil Kumar Joginpally Vs The State of Telangana