Telangana High Court
WP/39081/2013 of Chilukuru Anasuya Prabhavathi, Vs The Arbitrator-cum District Collector, Krishna District, on 31 December 2013
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39081 of 2013 Date:31.12.2013 Between: Chilukuru Anasuya Prabhavathi, W/o Kodandaramaiah ..... Petitioner And: The Arbitrator-cum-District Collector, Krishna District and two others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad
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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.39081 of 2013
Date:31.12.2013
Between:Chilukuru Anasuya Prabhavathi,W/o Kodandaramaiah And:The Arbitrator-cum-District Collector,Krishna District and two others.
..... Petitioner
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C.V.R.Rudra PrasadCounsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following:ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance thatrespondent No.1 has not been disposing of the ClaimPetition filed by the petitioner against Award No.19 of2012 in proceedings No.Rc.B3/3425/2010, dated17.09.2012, of respondent No.2.
At the hearing, Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, thelearned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that certainitems of the petitioner’s property have not been includedin the notification issued by the National HighwaysAuthority of India and that the said items are the subjectmatter of the Claim Petition before respondent No.1. Hehas further stated that unless the existence of the misseditems is not noted down before the property is used forthe formation of the National Highway, the petitioner will loose evidence for substantiating her claim ofcompensation before respondent No.1. Learned counsel,however, conceded that no application, for a direction tothe authority concerned to send a report on the existenceor otherwise of the items of the property claimed by thepetitioner, has been made by the petitioner beforerespondent No.1. Before filing this Writ Petition, thepetitioner ought to have made such an application torespondent No.1.
In the above view of the matter, the petitioner ispermitted to make an application before respondent No.1for a direction to the competent authority to take note ofthe physical features of the property in respect of whichthe petitioner made her claim. If such application is filed,within two weeks, respondent No.1 shall pass anappropriate order.
Subject to the above directions and the libertygiven to the petitioner as above, the Writ Petition isdisposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition,W.P.M.P.No.48546 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.
____________________________
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNAREDDY31[st] December, 2013DR