Telangana High Court
WA/1812/2008 of Kudithi Subbamma Vs The District Collector on 30 December 2008
SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.A.NO.1812 OF 2008 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard both the counsel. 2. The writ petitioner is the appellant. 3. It appears that the writ petitioner’s land has been taken over by
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 D.S.R.VARMAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
W.A.NO.1812 OF 2008
JUDGMENT(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma)
Heard both the counsel.
2. The writ petitioner is the appellant.
3. It appears that the writ petitioner’s land has been taken over by the 4[th] respondent - The Vice Chairman, Tirupathi UrbanDevelopment Authority, for development. The claim of the writpetitioner is that she being the legal heir of the original assignee, is theowner of the land and hence the Government cannot acquire the landwithout following the due process of law.
4. The settled law is that even though the land is assigned, theGovernment, which assigned the land, remains to be the true ownerand the same can always be acquired for any public cause.
5. It is also not in dispute that the relief sought for by the writpetitioner is that she is entitled for compensation. In view of the saidrelief, no interim order need be passed. Until the writ petition is heardand disposed of finally, the question of payment of compensation,cannot be decided.
6. The learned single Judge dismissed the interlocutoryapplication on the ground that in the event of writ petitioner’s success,question of compensation can be decided.
7. We do not find any illegality or irregularity whatsoever in the impugned interlocutory order and further no prejudice is caused orlikely to be caused to the writ petitioner. Hence, the writ appeal isdismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
------------------------------------- D.S.R.VARMA,J ------------------------------------- G.CHANDRAIAH,J
DATE:30.12.2008AVS