Telangana High Court
WP/39977/2012 of Chenna Naidu, S/o. Sanjanna, Vs Government of A.P., on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.39977 of 2012 Dated 28th December, 2012 Between: Chenna Naidu and others …Petitioners and Government of A.P., rep.by the District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District, and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWrit Petition No.39977 of 2012
Between:
Dated 28thDecember, 2012
Chenna Naidu and others
and
…Petitioners
Government of A.P., rep.by the District Collector, MahaboobnagarDistrict, and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri D.Prakash Reddy for Sri G.Butchaia Goud Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following:
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:
A consent award, which was made as far back as 05.11.2005,under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘theAct’) is questioned in this writ petition.
An extent of Acs.23.04¾ guntas of land belonging to thepetitioners was acquired for construction of a new broad-gauge linefrom Gadwal town to Raichur under notification, dated 17.03.2003. Onthe purported consent given by the petitioners, Award No.46 of 2005was passed on 05.11.2005, wherein a sum of Rs.60,000/- per acrewas fixed as compensati0on. The petitioners have received thecompensation without any demur in two instalments. However, theowners of the land admeasuring Acs.22.32 ½ guntas did not give theirconsent and therefore an award under Section 11(1) of the Act waspassed on 04.08.2007. At the instance of the owners of the landcovered by the said award, dated 04.8.2007, the dispute was referredto the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The reference was registered as O.P.Nos.48 and 57 of 2008 in the Court of the learnedSenior Civil Judge, Gadwal. By judgment, dated 02.07.2009, the CivilCourt has enhanced the compensation to Rs.146/- per square yard.
When the reference proceedings were pending, the petitionersappeared to have made a representation stating that the compensationpaid to them is meagre. After the disposal of the OPs by the referenceCourt, the petitioners again made their efforts to get highercompensation on par with the claimants in O.P.Nos.48 and 57 of2008. As they have failed in their attempt, they have filed this writpetition.
I have heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for thepetitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for LandAcquisition.
The petitioners have raised a feeble plea that they beingilliterates, the respondents have obtained their signatures on blankpapers and that no negotiations were held by the District LevelNegotiation Committee as required under the extant rules.
I am afraid, the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise this pleaat this length of time. Not only that the consent award was passed butalso the petitioners have received their compensation in twoinstalments without raising any protest. If their signatures wereobtained on blank papers without informing them of the purpose forwhich they were obtained, the petitioners would not have received thecompensation without protest. The only reason for them to rake up thesettled issue appears to be the award passed in favour of theclaimants in O.P.Nos.48 and 57 of 2008, wherein the reference Courthas steeply enhanced the compensation. This fact by itself would notentitle the petitioners to question the consent award. If the petitionersare serious in their plea that the consent award was passed bymisleading them, nothing prevented them from questioning the samewithin a reasonable period. Having slept over the issue for more thanseven years, it is not open for them to question the validity of the consent award.
The writ petition suffers from uncondonable laches and theconduct of the petitioners in accepting the consent award and actingon the same by receiving compensation without protest disentitlesthem to turn round and question the award at this length of time.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition fails and thesame is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.50758of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
28[th] December, 2012VGB
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J