Dismissed

Kollu Satyanarayana v. Union of India

Telangana HC11 Sept 2023WP/25076/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed Respondent (District Collector) to consider the petitioner's representation for enhancement of land acquisition compensation without applying the limitation period, according to Section 30 of the National Highways Act, 1956.

What did the court decide?

Directed District Collector to consider representation for enhancement of compensation and refer to arbitrator under Sec. 30(1) of NH Act, 1956 within 3 months.

Kollu Satyanarayana Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[32561

¶3

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

¶4

IMONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTETUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 25076 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kollu Satyanarayana, S/o. Ramaiah, aged about 62 yearc, Occ. Business, Fl/o. Naikangudam Village, Kusumanchi l,4andal, Khammam District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Union of lndia, Ministry of Roads and Transport Department, New Delhi, rep.by its Secretary.

¶13

) National Highway Authority of lndia, Rep.by its Project Director, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶14

Stale of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶15

4 The District Collector, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶16

5 The Joint Collector/CAlA, Khammam District at Khammam.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 ol 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 direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not paying sufficient compensation to the petitioner towards acquiring the land in an extent of 4906.813 Sq. meters (Equivalent to 1.06 guntas) in Sy.No. 255128 and in an extent of 101 .171 Sq. Meters (equivalent to 0.01^guntas) in Sy.No. 255lAA1 of Non-Agricultural land situated at Nayakangudem Village, Kusumanchi Mandal, Khammam District and also towards other existing structures and other appurtenances of the above stated lands as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles, 14,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation for the above stated land and to its accessories/appurtenances along with interest by duly calculating the land value as commercial land and also to^pay costs and compensation and employee compensation, loss of business last 5^years.

¶19

lA NO: 1 oF 2023

¶20

Petition under secti_on .151 cpc prayrng that in the c rr;ums:ances stated in the affidavit frled rn sroport of the peiitio;, if, u Uigf-., Cour nray be pleased to dispose of the rerres"i].,,:lg o"t'"0^'o].bg io|r, zr.tc r.,18, 30.1 1.2o2o, 20 os 2 )22, 22 06.2022,.i zg"iz'.i022, pendn:r drsposal or writ 33;l,t;r"" Counset for the petitioner: SRI V. BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY

¶21

Counset for the Res6,61.1dent No.1 : SRI cADl PRAVEEN KUM AFI (Dy. SOL|C|TOR GEI,IERA_ OF INDtA)

¶22

Counsel for the Resporrdent No.2: SRI L. pADMA RAO, SC F()Fl NH,A

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 to 5: Gp FOR REVENJE

¶24

The Court made the f,>llowing: ORDER

¶25

-Y

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.25076 of 2023

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The property of the petitioner was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of formation of National Highway and award vide Rc.No.Gl/2OOl2OlB/1, dated 14 .O9 .2O 18 was passed awarding compensation in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter a supplementary ar.r,ard was passed vide Rc.No.G1/200/2018, dated 30. t 1.2O19 awarding compensation to the land owners in respect of the structures that were existed on the property acquired, ald the petitioner was paid compensation. Having not satisfied with the said award, the petitioner claimed to have submitted a representation dated 30.ll.2O2O requesting for enhancement of compensation and to refer the matter to the District Collector, Khammam under Section 3G(5) of National Highways Act, 1956. The said application was acknowledged by the Tahsildar concerned on 14.12.2O2O. Having not received any response on the said application, the petitioner approached this Court by hling the present writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents in not paying sufficient compensation

¶29

¶30

)

¶31

to the pctiti:rtter itl rcspect^{ol tlre strucLul-ese:ri:'tccLon his} land.

¶32

Learnctl Clovcrnnrcttt^{Plcader for Land AcqrrLsition,} en^{instrttcl icns, submittccl that requer;t mzL'-lc bytl're} petitioner a; t:arl.t' as bn^{30. 11 .2020 u'as acknorvlc'1gedby} tl-re Tahsil<iar concernecl on^{14.12.20'.aOtlltrsame is} requircd to b,: rcferred^{to t l-rc arbitratorz s re<1u ire tl under} Scction 3G 5) oi the Natiorral^{Highu'a1'sActl9!i(>, and} appropriatc orders ma1'^{bc p:rsscd in the u rit pctitiolr.}

¶33

In tl-rc |ght of thc abovc,^{the question a;o} 'r'hether the petition -:r is entitled^{frrr cnhancementof c:nlpt'rrsation} or not is no, l.he matter that^{can be gone .nto[)v this Court} in this r,",rit ot:tition and tiris^{Court is of the cor srclete'd vielr'} that it is a fil. case wherc thc^{respondentscart 1)e} 'llrected to takc ap6 ropriate stcps for considerinll^{the r:asr: of the} petitione r fc r enhancemcnt of compensation.

¶34

Accor<lingly, this rvrit petition is disposec.^{r'f di:ecting} respondent No.4 to considcr the^{representitttonof the} petitiorrer c ated 30.11.2O2O without taling rnto^ilccount the delal, ir liling the said representation ald^pass, orders in accordanct: u,ith las' b1 dul,v referring the rratter under Section 3G(r) of the Act, l956 as expediti,rusly as^possible,

at any rate within a period of three (3) month s from the

¶39

date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶40

As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

¶41

shall stand closed.

¶42

SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY //TRUE COPY/i^{ASSlsru6EGlsrRAR}

¶43

SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To, 1 The S_ecretary, Union of lndia, IVinistry of Roads and Transport Department, New Delhi

¶45

The Prolect_Director, National Highway Authority of lndia, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶46

, It.lllfltfl.i:gj:l"2. Revenue Deparrment, State of retansana, becreranat Buttdtnqs, Hyderabad.

¶47

The District Collector, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶48

I he Joint Collector/CAlA, Khammam District at Khammam.

¶49

One CC to SRt V. BRAHIVATAH C^HO_WqARY, nOrocate tOpUCl 1. 9n"^{CC to SRt L. PADMA RAO,} SC ron runA'ritpucl^{'-- -,}

¶50

B. ONE CC tO SRI GADI PRAVEET\ KUMNN (OV. dOLrbrTON GENERAL OF rNDtA) [OPUC]

¶51

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Tetangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

'l0.Two CD Copiei

GJP Ft-

HIGH COU 1T

DATED:1 110912023

ORDER

WP.No.25076 of 2023

-;:. ,--': _- -.- -j!!
rl
/i-
t','
lt :) "t-:
Li
1.
ar
{r) a'
t/:
\rfi- , "1" *
...,,i

¶61

DISPOSINCi OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT^(;OSTS

¶62

\BLd4 K"

Kollu Satyanarayana v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kollu Satyanarayana v. Union of India

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

Rajesh Jain Vs Sri MD Nayeemuddin

Mohammed Majeehid Ali Vs Smt. Valluri Kranti IAS

Y. Naga Satish Vs V.L.C.V.S.S. Prasad alias V.L.S. Prasad

R. Usha Sree Vs The State of Telangana

Indira Dochania, Hyderabad, and 3 Otrs. Vs the State of Tg.,Revenue,Hyd.,and 4 Otrs.

Dakoji Yadagiri Vs State of Telangana