Disposed

C. Sudhakar Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Oct 2024WP/17888/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition regarding non-reference of compensation claims under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It directed petitioners to produce original acknowledgments for verification by the authority, who must then refer the matter to the Civil Court within six weeks if satisfied.

What did the court decide?

Direction to produce original acknowledgments for verification; direction to refer matter to Civil Court if verified.

C. Sudhakar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶¹

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 17888 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

C. Sudhakar Reddy, Sio. C. Nalla Reddy, 55 years.

¶9

C. Linga Reddy, S/o.Nalla Reddy. 53 years.

¶10

Damodar Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, 47 years.

¶11

Ananthamma, W/o. Laxmi Reddy, 65 years.

¶12

C. Linga Reddy, S/o. C. Nalla Reddy, 53 years,

¶13

C. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. Nalla Reddy, 55 years.

¶14

C. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Nalla Reddy, 58 years.

¶15

Smt. Ananthamma, Wo. Laxmi Reddy, 65 years.

¶16

C. Linga Reddy (died), per LRs 10 to 11

¶17

10.C. Munemma, W/o. Late C. Linga Reddy, age 40 years,

¶18

11.C. Chandra Shekar, Sio. C. Linga Reddy. Age 45 years.

¶19

P. Narsimhulu, S/o. Ramanna, 61 years.

¶20

M. Narsimhulu, S/o. Venkanna, 47 years.

¶21

(All are agriculturists, R/o. Earladinne Village, Amarachinta Mandal, Wanaparthy District).

¶22

..,..PETITIONERS

¶23

AND

¶24

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary lrrigation Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶25

The District Collector (LA), Wanapaphy District at Wanaparthy.

¶26

The Special Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition Office, (.LA) umit LA Unit, PJP, Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

..,..RESPONDENTS

Ij I i

-7

Petitio n UnderArticle226oflheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court maybe} pleasedtoissueawrit,orderordirectionparticularlyoneinthenatureofWritof Mandamus,declaringtheactionofthe3rdrespondentinnotreferringthe Application^{daled- 25.04.2008U/S 18 of the Land Acquisition Act' 1894by the} CivilCourtasillegal,arbitraryandviolationofArticle300-AoftheConstitutionof lndia and further^{direct the 3rd respondentin not referring the applications of the} petitionersdaled.25.04.2008filedU/SlBoftheLandAcquisitionAct,lB94by theCivilCourtasillegal,arbitraryandviolationofArticle300.4ofthe Constitutionoflndiaandfurtherdirectthe3rdrespondenttoreferthematterto the Civil Court^{for determinationof compensation for the wells situatedat} Earladinne Village,^{AmarachinthaMandal,WanaparthyDistrict'TelanganaState} 3 of 2008 Dt^{27.O3.2OOBpassedby the} by File No.^{B/10/1990vide Award No} 3rd respondent.

¶31

l.A.NO .1 0F 2024

¶32

PetitionUnderSection,l5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleasedand} to direct the 3rd^{respondent to refer the matter U/S1 8 of the LA Act vide} applications dated-^{25.04.2008 to the Civil Court for determinationof} compensationforthewellsSituatedatEarladinneVillage,AmarachinthaMandal, WanaparthyDistrict,TelanganaStatevideFile.NoB/10/1990videAwardNo'3 of 2008 Dt. 27.03.2008^{passed by the'3rd respondentpending disposal of the} writ petition.

¶33

Counsel for the^{Petitioners: SRI S'VENKATESHWAR REDDY}

¶34

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.1: GP FORlRRl AND COMM AREA} DEVELOPMENT

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.2 & 3 : G.P FOR LAND ACQUISITION}

¶36

The Court made the^{followingORDER}

¶37

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD^KUMAR

¶38

WRIT PETITION No.17888 of 2024

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the^{petitioners, learned} Government Pleader for Irrigation &^CommandArea Development(CAD) appea,ring for respondent^{No.1, learned} Government Pleader for Land^{Acquisitionappearingfor} respondents No.2 & 3, and with the^{consent of the learned} counsel appearing for the respective^{parties, the Writ} Petition is taken up for hearing and^{disposal at admission} stage.

¶41

Shorn of unnecessary details, the^{case ofthe} petitioners, in briei, is that aggrieved by the^Award, dt.27.O3.2OO8, passed by the 3'd^{respondentwith regardto} the determination of compensation^{payable in respect of} their lands acquired, they have liled^{applicationsseeking} reference under Section 18 of the^{Land Acquisition Act,} 1894 (for short the Act') to the^{competentCivil Court;and} that the said applications have^{not been referred by the} respondents-authorities to the competent^{Civil Court till}

¶42

I I

¶43

¶44

date, which action it is contended as being illegal and arbitrary.

¶45

Per contra, learned Government pleader for Land Acquisition appearing on behalf of 2,,1 and 3.a respondents_ authorities has praced before this court written instructions, dt.23. 1O.2O24, under the signature of the Special Deputy Colector, RLISP_II, pebbair, He at IDOC, Wanaparthy. By the written instructions it is stated that the petitioners did not submit petitions under Section 1g of the Act, and that the petitions stated to have been filed are not found in the file and that even the signature of the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) priyadarshini Jurala Project, Gadwal, is not tallied on the Inward Stamp, affixed on the copy of the petitions filed atong with the Writ Petition.

¶46

4 By the written instructions it is further stated that the acknowledgment copies are not issued to the petitioners, inasmuch as the petitioners have filed the entire applications u/s.rg of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act) stated to have been submitted and

¶47

¶48

¶49

not the acknowledgement part issued in proof of submission of the said applications.

¶50

By the written instructions it is further stated that the petitions filed under Section 18 are not entered in the register maintained by the respondents-authorities for the aforesaid purpose and a perusal of the Inward Stamp affixed on the petitions filed, the date was not stamped, and thus there is a suspicion as to the claim of the petitioners submitting the petitions under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference to the competent Civil Court.

¶51

I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

¶52

7 . It is to be noted that, in similar circumstances this Court in W.P.No. 17923 of 2024, wherein the respondentsauthorities though had stated that the applications filed u/s. 18 of the Act, as filed in the said case are not available in the record, however admitted to the fact of the fiIe containing xerox copies thereof and that the said applications have not been referred to the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction from 2OOB 12009 onwards.

¶53

¶54

This Court taking note of the fact that the respondents, in the aJoresaid writ petition, have admitted to the fact of the file containing xerox copies, directed the .^{authoritiesto refer the said applications} to the competent Court of Civit jurisdiction within a period of six (06) weeks.

¶55

The said writ petition was disposed ol by this Court on 22.10.2024. However, within a short span of one day, the authorities in the present case are claiming that the Inward Stamp affixed on the acknowledgment of the applications filed under Section 1g of the Act, are suspicious.

¶56

However, a perusal of the stamp affixed on the xerox copies of the applications submitted under Section 1g of the Act as fited in Writ petition No.17923 of 2024, on being compared with the stamp affixed on the applications filed in the present writ petition, does not appear to this Court to be different except for the date of stamping.

¶57

The above being the factual position, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are to be directed to approach the 3.d respondent-authority within a period of one (01)

¶58

¶59

II t

¶60

week from^{the date of receipt of a copy of this orderand} produce the^{originalsof the acknowledgments issuedon} submission^{of applicationsunderSection1B of Act' along} with Xerox^{copiesthereof in support of their claim of} submitting^{the said applicationsin the year 2O0B' for the} authority^{to comparethe same'}

¶61

Upon^{the petitionersapproachingthe 3'd respondent-} authority^{and producing the original acknowledgedcopies} of applications^{filed rrnde'r Section 18 of the Act' the 3'd} respondent-authority^{shal1 receivethe Xerox copiesafter} causing^{verification and on satisfyingitseif of the same} shall forward^{the said} being filed^{interms of Act'} Court^{of Civil jurisdiction} applications^{to the comPetent} within^{a furtherperiod of six (06) weeks thereafter'}

¶62

It^{is made clear that in the event of the petitioners} failing to^{produce the originalacknowledgedcopies of} applications^{filed under Section 18 of the Act with the seal} and date^{ofsubmission forverification by the3'd} respondent,^{the petitioners are not entitled to claimany} benefit thereunder'

¶63

¶64

Subject to the above observation and direction, the

¶65

Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶66

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if

¶67

any, shall stand closed.

¶68

SD/- T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGIS R

,TRUE COPYII

SECTION FICER

The Principal Secretary, lrrigation Department, Secretariat Buildings,

¶74

Saifabad, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶75

The District Collector (LA), Wanapaphy District at Wanaparthy.

¶76

The Special Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition Office, ( LA) uhit LA Unit, pJp, Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶77

4, Two CCs to GP FOR lRRl AND CONIM AREA DEVELOPMENT, High Courr for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶78

5 Two CCs to GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶79

6 One CC to SRI S VENKATESHWAR REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI

¶80

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:2311012024

ORDER

WP.No.17888 of 2024

o R \riE S 14
( JA
oo r
16 il0i/ 20a
l:
PATCH EO

¶90

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶91

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶92

orcq"a -K

C. Sudhakar Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Sudhakar Reddy 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

Atram Sudhakar Vs the Special Agent to Govt. and Project Officer and 2 Others

Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Bere Pochaiah, Vs State of Telangana

Sri. Godugu Shikari Naveen Kumar Vs M/s. Krishna Sai Hospitality and another

Sarva Srinivas Yadav Vs Government of a.P., rep. by its Secretary (Revenue)

Rrm Educational Society Vs Union of India