Telangana High Court
WA/1167/2010 of M/s. S.V.E.C. Constructions Ltd., Represented by its Vs The Competent Authority NH-9 AND Revenue Divisional on 31 December 2010
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated: 31-12-2010 WRIT APPEAL No. 1167 OF 2010 Between: M/s. S.V.E.C.Constructions Limited, rep., by its Managing Director Chalasani Azad Kumar, S/olate Srimannarayana Murthy, R/o Chimiryala, H/o
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRUandTHE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
Dated: 31-12-2010
WRIT APPEAL No. 1167 OF 2010
Between:
M/s. S.V.E.C.Constructions Limited, rep., by its Managing DirectorChalasani Azad Kumar, S/olate Srimannarayana Murthy, R/oChimiryala, H/o Nallabandaguda, Kodada Mandal, Nalgonda District
... APPELLANT
AND
The Competent Authority, NH-9 & Revenue Divisional Officer,Suryapet, Nalgonda District and six others …RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRUand THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL No. 1167 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru)
The land belonging to the appellant having been acquired underthe provisions of the National Highway Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’),consequently, writ petition on 07-09-2010. By then vesting of the landin the Central Government had already taken place. Not only that,award too was passed. In that view of the matter, the learned singleJudge declined indulgence. However, while doing so liberty came tobe accorded to the appellant to approach the Arbitrator in case ofdissatisfaction with the compensation determined by the competentauthority. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is thatthe District Collector cannot be the Arbitrator. On that count, we leavethe appellant free to approach the appropriate authority or theArbitrator, in accordance with law. Dismissed.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ
31-12-2010
K. Shyleshi