Telangana High Court
LAAS/809/2007 of S. Narayana Rao Vs R. laxmana Rao on 31 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR L.A.A.S.NO.809 OF 2007 DATED DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN Sirugudi Narayana Rao and Others … Appellants/L.Rs. of 3rd Claimant And Reddipalli Laxmana Rao and Others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI
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 SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
L.A.A.S.NO.809 OF 2007
DATED DECEMBER, 2010
BETWEEN
Sirugudi Narayana Rao and Others … Appellants/L.Rs. of 3[rd] Claimant
And
Reddipalli Laxmana Rao and Others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
L.A.A.S.NO.809 OF 2007
JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J)
The legal representatives of claimant No.3 in O.P.No.8 of 2004on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, arethe appellants in this appeal.
The said O.P. arose out of a reference made by the SpecialTahsildar, Land Acquisition, Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam, underSections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, owing to therival claims over the compensation payable for the land admeasuringAc.0.01½ cents situated in Survey No.61/2B6 of Maddilapalem Villagein Visakhapatnam, which was acquired by the State for the purpose ofroad widening. By Award No.7/93 dated 30.07.1993, the LandAcquisition Officer, upon due enquiry, determined the compensationpayable at Rs.36,091/-. As there was a dispute as to the apportionmentof the said compensation amongst the claimants, the reference wasmade to the Court as aforestated.
Respondent No.1 herein, being claimant No.1 in the O.P., filedhis claim statement admitting that claimant Nos.2 to 4 were hismaternal uncles and laying a claim to 1/5[th] share in the compensation.As the notice issued to claimant No.3 in the said O.P. was returnedwith the endorsement that he had died, the matter was adjourned forenabling steps to be taken to implead his legal representatives.However, no steps were taken thereafter. As claimant Nos.2 and 4also failed to file their claim statements in spite of service of notice and claimant No.1 did not evince interest; the claim petition was closed bythe Court on 11.04.2005.
Thereafter, claimant No.1 filed I.A.No.50 of 2005 in the O.P.seeking reopening of the matter by setting aside the order dated11.04.2005. Notice thereon was served only upon the LandAcquisition Officer. The reference Court however failed to take note ofthe above stated aspects and straight away adjudicated the matter onmerits by order dated 08.07.2005, deciding the entitlement of the heirsof the deceased claimant No.3 in their absence. Aggrieved thereby,the legal representatives of claimant No.3 are before this Court.
The order under appeal reflects that the Court below was awareof the fact that claimant No.3 had died and that no steps were taken toimplead his legal representatives. In spite of the same, the Court wenton to adjudicate the matter without initiating steps for putting the legalrepresentatives of the deceased claimant No.3 on notice. As theadjudication inevitably had effect on their interests as their share in thecompensation awarded stood decided in their absence, the appellantsherein being the legal representatives of claimant No.3 have a justifiedgrievance. The Court below ought to have been aware of theconsequences of its action in deciding the matter behind their backand ought to have taken care to see that all the affected parties wereput on notice prior to the adjudication of the matter on merits.
We accordingly set aside the order dated 08.07.2005 passed bythe I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, in O.P.No.8 of2004 and remit the matter for consideration afresh after impleadment ofall the necessary parties. As the matter has been kept pending for asufficiently long period, the interest of justice requires that it be givenexpeditious disposal. The Court below is accordingly directed to takeup the matter on priority basis and dispose of the same on merits, aftergiving due opportunity in all respects to the parties concerned, withinfour (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
_________ DECEMBER, 2010.
VGSR
_______________________
GODA RAGHURAM, J.
____________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J.