Telangana High Court
WP/42261/2015 of Lalam China Satyam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, on 31 December 2015
SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.42261 OF 2015 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners making a claim with respect to the land admeasuring Ac.0.12½
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION No.42261 OF 2015
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:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learnedGovernment Pleader for Land Acquisition.
The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners making a claim with respect to the land admeasuring Ac.0.12½ cents andAc.0.37½ cents out of Ac.1.13 cents in Survey No.255/4 of Pudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, on the groundthat the said land was acquired in 2006 for the purpose of APIIC (SEZUnit-I), Visakhapatnam. While there is no controversy that the 4[th]respondent has received compensation vide proceedings inRc.No.14/2006, S.D.T.-II, dated 08.05.2008, of the Special GradeDeputy Collector (L.A.) APIIC (SEZ Unit-I) Industrial Estate,Visakhapatnam, the 3[rd] respondent, the petitioners grievance in thisWrit Petition is that now land to land compensation is proposed to bepaid to the 4[th] respondent ignoring their claim. The petitioners alsoserved a legal notice, dated 07.03.2015, on the 3[rd] respondentobjecting such claim and making a claim for themselves. Since nopositive response is received from respondents 1 to 3, the present WritPetition is filed.
Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition had receivedinstructions from the 3[rd] respondent, which inter alia show that thepetitioners claim for compensation for the land to an extent ofAc.0.12½ cents in Survey No.255/4, is actually payable to them andnot to the 4[th] respondent. But, in the present Writ Petition also theorder passed as early as on 08.05.2008 is questioned by the petitioners on the ground that their share of compensation is not paidto them.
It is apparent that the order of 2008 paying compensation to the4[th] respondent cannot be examined in this Writ Petition on account oflong lapse of time and the delay and laches on its part so far as thepetitioners’ other grievance that compensation of land to land packageis being extended to the 4[th] respondent is concerned, the instructionsof learned Government Pleader clearly show that there is no suchpackage and “no amount towards monetary benefit of land to landpackage payable under R & R package has been paid to anybody sofar.”
In view of the same, it is only the apprehension of the petitionersand there is no basis for it. Hence, no further orders are called for inthis Writ Petition.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be noorder as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petitionshall stand closed.
____________________________
VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J
31.12.2015KH