Telangana High Court
WP/27047/2005 of K. Venkata Subbarayudu, Vs The District Collector, on 27 December 2005
MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27047 of 2005 Dated:27.12.2005 Between: K. Venkata Subbarayudu, S/o. Subbarayudu, R/o. H.No.1-1412, Parnapalle Road, Pulivendula, Kadapa District, and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Kadapa District, Kadapa, and another.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.27047 of 2005
Dated:27.12.2005
Between: K. Venkata Subbarayudu, S/o. Subbarayudu, R/o. H.No.1-1412, Parnapalle Road, Pulivendula, Kadapa District, andothers.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
The District Collector, Kadapa District, Kadapa, and another.
.....RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
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.
ORDER:
WRIT PETITION No.27047 of 2005
The petitioners claim to be the owners of houses situated at Parnepalle Road inPulivendula, Kadapa District. They claim that their houses have appurtenant land,but allege that while issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), proposing to acquire the property for laying the roadfrom Parnepalle to Pulivendula, the respondents have shown only that portion of theland occupied by building and have not notified the appurtenant land allegedlysituated in front of the petitioners’ houses. Therefore, they assail the notificationissued under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 12.12.2005, whereby and whereunderenquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with.
When the matter was listed on 20.12.2005, this Court directed the learned AssistantGovernment Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition) to get instructions in the matter.Today, after getting instructions in the matter, the learned Assistant GovernmentPleader submits that the land which is situated in front of the petitioners’ housesforms part of Roads and Buildings land, and therefore, there is no necessity toacquire the same. He also submits that if the petitioners have any proof that the land in front of their houses is the land appurtenant to their houses, they can raise thesame objection before the Land Acquisition Officer and seek compensation for thesame.
The question whether the land in front of the petitioners’ houses forms part ofappurtenant land over which the petitioners have title, is a disputed question of fact,which cannot be decided in a writ petition. Therefore, as rightly submitted by thelearned Assistant Government Pleader, petitioners can raise their objections duringthe award enquiry, as and when the Land Acquisition Officer issues notificationunder Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Act. If their contention is not accepted, it would bestill open to the petitioners to seek a reference to Court under Section 18 of the Act, ifthey raise a dispute regarding actual area which was acquired for the publicpurpose. In this writ petition, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.
Giving liberty to the petitioners to raise all the objections, in the light of survey report2005, before the Land Acquisition Officer, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
____________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
27.12.2005