Telangana High Court
WP/34355/2012 of Chaluvadi Narayana Vs The District Collector, on 28 December 2012
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.34355 of 2012 Date : 28-12-2012 Between: Chaluvadi Narayana and another .. Petitioners And The District Collector, Guntur, Guntur District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri Ravishankar Jandhyala Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
W.P.No.34355 of 2012
Date : 28-12-2012
Between:
Chaluvadi NarayanaPetitioners
and another ..
And
The District Collector,Guntur, Guntur DistrictRespondents and others ..
Counsel for petitioners : Sri Ravishankar JandhyalaCounsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleaderfor 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:
The grievance of the petitioners in this Writ Petition isthat respondent No.3 has not extended the benefit of highercompensation fixed in respect of similarly situated personswhose lands were also acquired for Dr. K.L. Rao Sagar(Pulichintala) Project, Guntur.
At the hearing, it is not disputed by the learnedcounsel for the petitioners that in respect of the petitioners inW.P.No.4288/2009, a direction was given to therespondents to pay Rs.10 lakhs per acre under consentaward under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894. It is also not disputed that the petitioners are notparties to the said Writ Petition and that no such consentaward was passed in their case. On the contrary, an awardunder Section 11(1) of the Act was passed on 4-3-2011. In the light of these distinguishing features betweenthe petitioners in W.P.No.4288/2009 and the petitionersherein, the latter cannot seek extension of the same benefitas was given to the former. However, the petitioners areentitled to seek reference of the dispute under Section 18 ofthe Act, subject to the period of limitation under sub-section
(2) thereof.
Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, WPMP No.43693/2012 is disposed of asinfructuous.
Date : 28-12-2012
________________________
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
AM