Telangana High Court
WP/11574/1996 of T. Appala Ramachandra Raju Vs Revenue Divisional Officer, on 26 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO. 11574 of 1996 DATED: 26..12..2005 BETWEEN: T. Appala Ramachandra Raju and 11 others …Petitioners and Revenue Divisional Officer and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO. 11574 of
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU
WRIT PETITION NO. 11574 of 1996
BETWEEN:
DATED: 26..12..2005
T. Appala Ramachandra Raju and 11 others …Petitionersand Revenue Divisional Officer and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU
WRIT PETITION NO. 11574 of 1996
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:
Aggrieved by the order remanding the case, while allowing the appealpreferred by the petitioners to him by the Appellate Authority under the A.P.(AndhraArea) Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956, (for short ‘the act’) theclaimants preferred this petition. Land in T.S.No.124, Block IV of Maharanipet,Visakhapatnam was acquired under the provisions of the Act. The primary authorityinitially fixed some amount as the compensation payable to the writ petitioners andlater reviewed that order. Questioning the same, the petitioners filedC.M.A.No.74/1992 before the Appellate Authority under the Act, i.e. the DistrictJudge, who by his order dated 02-11-1994 by allowing the appeal and setting asidethe order of the Prescribed Authority, remanded the case to the Prescribed Authorityfor arriving at the true area of the land acquired as required under Rule 13(2)(a) ofthe Rules and thereafter arrive at the net average annual income and determine thecompensation payable to the revision petitioners.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that when all thedocuments and material is before the Appellate Authority, and when admittedly theAct does not confer any right of remand on it, the Appellate Authority was in error inremanding the case. He relied on “A.V.KRISHNA RAO v. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.”where it is held that the Prescribed Authority under the Act has no power toredetermine the compensation payable to acquired lands after publication of Gazettenotification under Section 6(3) and contended that when once the compensationwas determined, the Primary Authority reviewing its order is bad.
The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is since theAppellate Authority felt that there is a discrepancy in the area, it had remanded thecase to the Tribunal and so there are no grounds to interfere with the order.
Since, the Act does not confer the power of remand on the Appellate Authorityand since the Appellate Authority by taking into consideration the record availablebefore it, can determine the compensation payable to the petitioners, the appellateauthority was in error in remanding the case to the Primary Authority, and shouldhave disposed of the case basing on the material or by taking such steps as arenecessary for arriving at the correct compensation payable to the petitioners.
Therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority impugned this writ petition isset aside with a direction to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the case on meritsbasing on the record and after following the procedure prescribed under the Act andthe rules made there under. No costs.
Dated: 26-12-2005
rns
____________________
C.Y.SOMAYAJULU, J.