Allowed

Ravinuthula Nagendramma v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC18 Apr 2023WP/28674/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Telangana set aside the memo rejecting the petitioners’ request for compensation enhancement. The Court held that since the petitioners submitted the Section 18 application within the six-week period, they should not suffer for the administrative delay in forwarding it to the authority.

What did the court decide?

The impugned memo dated 15.02.2013 is set aside and the respondent is directed to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 forthwith. No order as to costs.

Ravinuthula Nagendramma Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 28674 OF 2013

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ravinuthula Nagendramma, W/o late Venkateshwarlu, Aged 69^years, Occupation: Agriculture,

¶10

Ravinuthula Srinivas Rao, S/o late Venkateshwarlu, Aged 39^years,Both residing at Gunturupalli, H/o Kothapalli village, Kataram mandal, Karimnagar distrlct

¶11

...PET,,.NERS

¶12

AND

¶13

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary,^{Departmentof Land} Acquisition, Seccretariat Building, Seccretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The District Collector,, Kartmnagar District, Collectorate^Compound, Karimnagar. Karimnagar Diskict.

¶15

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum, Revenue^Divisional Officer,^Manthani, Karimnagar dtstrict

¶16

...RESpoNDENrs Petition under Article 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, one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any^other appro riate Writ, Direction or Order declaring^{the Memo bearingNo.2250/1997} dated 15.02.2013 of the 3rd Respondent as^{illegal and contraryto the provisions} of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and^{set aside the same and} consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to refer^{the petition dated04.1 0.'1 999} filed by the Petitioners for seeking the reference under^{Section18 of the Land} Acquisition Act to the competent civil court for determination^{of compensationas} per law

¶17

l.A. NO: I OF 20{3(WPMP. NO: 35594^{OF 2013)}

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Courtmay be pleased to direct} the respondents to refer the matter for^{determination of the adequate}

¶19

compensation for il e acquired lands of the Petitioner under^se( tion^{1B of the Land} Acquisition Act b tl e competent civil court as^per application d. ted^0.110.1999 Counsel for the P€ itioners: SRl. MIRZA AIJAZ ALI BAIG

¶20

Counsel for the Re ;pondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶21

The Court made th : following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE.SRI JUSTICE MUMIUINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.28674 of 2Ot3

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

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

¶25

This Writ Petition is hled aggrieved by tl're action of respondent No.3 in issuing the Memo bearing No.B l22SO I 1997 , da\ed 15.02.2013, rejecting the request of the petitioners lbr making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act, 1894J in respect of land under Arvard No.4/ 1999-20OO No.B/2250/97, dated 30.08.1999.

¶26

The facts of the case are that respondent No.3 passed an Award, dated 30.O8.1999 a-nd compensation was paid to the petitioners on the same day and the sarne was received by the petitioners under protest. Thereafter, the petitioners claim to have submitted a representation, dated 04.10.1999, requesting for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation hxed under Arvard, dated 30.08.1999. The s;aid reqlrest of the petitioner was rejected by respondent Itlo.3 by issiuing the impugned memo on the grouncl that tJle rcquest made [:y thc pe titioners through represerrtation,

!t ! i t

dated O4. 1,1. 999 was placcd bcfore respon(lcnt l,lcr.3 rnly on 13.10.1999 i :., beyond thc period of sk wecks, as ['roviclcci under Sr:ctior 18 of the Act, 1894.

¶31

I1 is the spccihc contention o[ learnec r:ounsel for the petitioner ; rhat the petitioners have subn.ittt:d th eir request on O4.1O.I91 9 itself but for the reasons best knorun, the respondents iave placed the same before rcsponde n.- No.3 only on i3.10.19{ 9 and for such delay on the part rrf office of respondcnt N r.ll, the petrtioi'rcrs cannot madc to sulfe r.

¶32

5.F )spondent No.3 hled counter-afildavit stat.ng that the petitionet ; have filed their application under fie:ticn 18 of the Act, 189 or:. O4.10.1999. Bul, the sard applicat olr was placed before respondent No.3 on 13.10.1999 and 1h,:reJbre, the application o1 the petitioners is stated to be barred b r iirnitation and the sam, was placed before the respondents rlfl-er lapse of six weeks.

¶33

'.I rere is no dispute on the facts and a,hritt:dly the request of t-hr petiLioners under Section 18 of the Act, 1ii94 was submitted in the office of respondent No.3 on 04.1 O 19')9 itself which will w thin a period of six weeks, contem:Lrte<l under Section 18 o the Act, 1894. But, the same was placeri before respondent N r.3 on i3.10.1999 i.e., two days after e;<piry of the

¶34

six weeks period. The^{petitioners cannot be made to suffer} because of lacheS committed^{in the ofhce of respondentNo.3 and} in view of the fact that thc^{petitionershave already submitted} their application under Section 18 of^{the Act, 1894on} 04.10. 1999 well within a^{periodof six weeks,as contemplated} under Section 18 of the Act,^{1894. This Court does not find any} justification for respondent No.3 to refuse the request of^the petitioners to make a reference under Section^{l8 of the Act,} t894.

¶35

In the circumstances and for the^{aforementioned} reasons, the impugned memo,^{dated15.02.2013, is set aside} and respondent No.3 is further^{directed to forthwith make a} reference under Section 18 of^the Act,^{1894 in respect of the} lands acquired from the^{petitioners,covered by an Award} No.Bl225Ol97, dated 30.08. 1999, and^{for consequentialsteps} in that regard. There shall be no order as to^costs.

¶36

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.^Thereshall be no order as to costs.

¶37

Miscellaneous Petitions, if anv, pending in these^{two writ}

¶38

petitions shall stand closed.

¶39

_l-

¶40

SD/-I.NAGALAKSHMI DEPU TY REGI RAR /ITRUE COPY//

¶41

SECTION^OFFICER

¶42

The Secretarv. Deoartment of^{Land Acquisition, Stateof Telangana'}

¶43

To,J Secretariat Birildinb . Seccretariat,^Hyderabad. ilJDl;i*ib;il"lioi,, xiii.nagri^{oistrict, collectorate compound} Karimnagar. Karimnagar^District

¶44

-^----J

¶45

_ -----

¶46

3 The Lanc A^{quis tion Offrcer-cumRevenue Divtsicrral C)f'l'l(-'r l'4anthani'} Kanmnagar^{I istrict}

¶47

a Cjne CC^{io I Ii [/irza Arjaz Ali BargAdvocate[OPU-(I]} 6 i;; acrl"^{ip Foi r-aho AiquisiironHrghcburtf(,4rhe lirete (f Telangana} IOUTI

¶48

6 iwo CD^rlo res

¶49

MBC bs

BSR

HIGH COURT

l t

I \

DATE|) 18t04t2023

ORDER

WP.No.2ti674 ot 2013

ALLOWING THE WR!]' IPETITION WITHOUT^(}OSTS

¶59

q
Irs
tY [s5
8<

Ravinuthula Nagendramma v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinuthula Nagendramma v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

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