Allowed

Jalasri Nagarjuna Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC26 Apr 2023WP/41835/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition allowed directing Revenue Divisional Officer to redetermine compensation for acquired open site under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, holding the application was within limitation as time for obtaining certified decree was excluded. Judgment disposed without costs. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.3 to consider the application dated 07.12.2011 for re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894 within three months.

Jalasri Nagarjuna Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:41835 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Jalasri Nagarjuna Rao, S/o Venkateshwarlu, Age. 50 years, Occ. Household and Agriculture Fi/o Sri Sai Ratna Nivas, Hanuman Nagar, H.No.3-113, Flat No.301, Chaitanyapuri, Near Sri Chaitanya Junior College, Hyderabad, ,",iHElft,O*=*

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition), Secretariat Buildlngs, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, Nalgonda District.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda Division, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda Districu Land Acquisition officer

¶14

...RES'.NDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in not referring petitioners case to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for fixing the^proper market value for petitioners open site of 242 Square Yards in Sy.No.196 of Nandipahad revenue village acquired for the^purpose of laying BYPASS road or in the alternate declaring impugned action of the respondents in not enquiring^petitioner case under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act for the^purpose of redetermination of market value and compensation^payable to^petitioner for^{petitioner's said open} sile oi 242 Square Yards in Sy.No.196 of Nandipahad Revenue^{Village of} Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District as contrary to law,^{illegal, without} jurisdiction and in violation of Article^'14 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent no.3 either to refer^petitioner's case^{to the} Civil Court under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act,¹ 894,^pursuant to^the Award Proceedings No.E115520198-1 , dated 2810212002 of^{respondent no.3as} well as other peculiar circumstances or in alternate direct the Respondent^No.3 to enquire^petitioner's case with regard to^petitio4er's above^{referred open site of} 242 Square Yards in Sy.No. 196 of Nandipahad Revenue Village of^Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District for redetermination of market value as^per Section^28- A of Land Acquisition Act based on^{petitioner's petitions} filed twice by^petitioner's before the Respondent No.3

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition rnder Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the cirr umstances stated in the affidavit filed^-r supporl of the petition, the High Court rnay be^pleased to direct respondents^, :itlrer to forthwith refer Petitioner to tl- e Civil Court under Section 1 8 of Land Ar;quisition Act,¹ 894,^pursuant to the A,war d Proceedings No.E1l5520i98- 1 , diLted 2810212002 of the respondent no.3 or alternatively to direct the responde rts to enquire Petitioner case under S lr:tior 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 189 I^ror redetermination of compensation rzryab le to^petitioner for petitioner open s le of 242 Square^yards in Sy.No.196 ,rf Nandipahad Revenue Village, lrili yzrlaguda lt/landal, Nalgonda District

¶18

Counsel for the Peti lic,ner: SRl. PASHAM RAVINDRA REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Res^pondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUlSlTlOll

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.41835 of 2022 ORDER:

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learntd Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents.

¶23

Though this Writ Petition is filed seeking a reference under Section 18 oI the Land Acquisition Act, 1 894 (for short,, 'the Act, 1894J lbr enhancemerrt of compensation ir, respcct of property covered by Award proceedings No.El/5520-I/98-1, dated 23.02.'2002, learned counsel for the petitioner confining the relief only to the extent of considering the application, dated 07.12.2011, submitted by the petitioner under Section 28-A of Lhe Act, 1894, consequent upon the order passed by the competent Civil Court in O.P.No.42 of 2O05, d,ated, 24.06.207 t on the file of Court of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda.

¶24

According to learned counsel for the petitiol-ler, the petitioner has suhmitted the aforesaid application, datc'd 07.l2.2ol I seeking re-determination of compenszrtion under Section 2B-A of the Act, 1894 before rcspondent No.3 herein pursuant to the order and decrce, dated 24.06.2011, passeci in O.P.No.42 of 2005. ElLrt, the sairl application is kept pending without any further action irr the malte r.

¶25

¶26

f espondent No.S filecl counte r_affid. vr t . dmitting the fact ol sr rbmjssion of application under Secticn 2g _A of the Act, 18!14 b1 t-re petitioner on 07. 12.2Oll, rut crrrLtcnded that thc said ap1 lir;a1.ion is subrnitted beyond the ltcrLod of thrcc months frorr lhe date of passing of order and cir cr< c. datcrl 21.06.2t)11 , n O.p.No.42 of 2OOS.

¶27

5, I rc,m the penrsal of the mitteria on recorcl, especially th( copy of the order and decree, cirrted 24.06 2011, in O.l).No.,l2 of 2005 and the endorsement mirde tlre -eo e by tl_rc Court of Senro- Civil Court, Miryalaguda, it is no{.r ed that thc said dec:rce: v ar; passed on 24.06.2011 and copy al)F)licz.tion was frled 27.06.2(t 1 I and certified copy of the decr.ce wzrs rnade readv by the con<:er nr:d Court on 1S.09.2011.

¶28

I s already noted above, the petitioner lreLs s:bmitted applicatiorr r. n,ier Section 2g-A of the Act, i g9z If three (3) months time is computed from the date on r.vhich thr, copy of the order and d:cree was made ready by concer.ntrrl Court i,e., 15.09.201 1 , -he application submitted by the petit.rrn(.r is well u,ithin the pr ricd of three months. In terrrrs of S(rc _iorL 2g_A ol the Act. 189 1, time that is required for obrainine coJrv of the Award passe I by the concerned Court shall be exr:luded n,hile calculating t1 rr:e months period, piovidej unde. S:c:[ion 2g-A ot the Act, 189. . In terms of the said provision, time Iitr obtair_ring

¶29

¶30

copy of the decree in question i.e., from 2O.O7.2Oll to 15.09.2011 is bound to be excluded while calcuiating the period of three months, as provided under Section 28-A of the Act, 1894. If the same is applied, the application submitted by the petitioner on 07 .l2.2Ol1 is well within the time.

¶31

7 . In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to forthwith take up the said application, dated 07.12.201 1 submitted by the petitioner and consider the same for re-determination of the compensation in terms of Section 28-A of the Act, 1894, by duly taking into consideration the order and decree in L.A.O.P.No.42 of 2OO5, dated, 24.06.2011, and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with 1aw, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶32

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in his writ petition

¶33

shall stand closed.

¶34

¶35

SD/. P.Ch.^{NAGABHUSHAMBA} ASSISTADE^REGISTRAR secc#ru oFFlcER

¶36

UE COPY//

¶37

To, 1. The Revenue^{DivisionalOffi} r, Miryalaguda^{Division, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda} DistricU Land^Acquisition

¶38

1. Two Telanoana.at HYderabad CCs to GP^{FOR LAN} I UIi%or,a,r,o* ,Hish^{court for the state of} 3. one ic to sRi.^PASHAM VI NDRA REDDY,^Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies BM GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:26104t2023

ORDER

WP.No.41835 of 2022

"')
1'l
-1
1

DISPOSI NG^()F THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CI)STS

¶45

I
)
N_,
't" )< \r,)
., , t(, o' "

Jalasri Nagarjuna Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jalasri Nagarjuna 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

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