Telangana High Court
WP/27844/1995 of P.DAYAKAR REDDY Vs STATE OF A.P on 30 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO : 27844 of 1995 Between: P.DAYAKAR REDDY S/O VENKATRAMI REDDY KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, KOTA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI
WRIT PETITION NO : 27844 of 1995
Between:
P.DAYAKAR REDDY S/O VENKATRAMI REDDYKOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, KOTA MANDALNELLORE DISTRICT
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 STATE OF A.P, REP BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
NELLORE
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS NELLORE NELLORE
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINNER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS GUDUR, NELLORE DISTRICT GUDUR, NELLORE DISTRICT
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue an appropriate writ order direction more particularly one in the nature ofmandamus directing the respondents to determine the amount of compensationpayable towards the transfer of the land in s.no.1715/2 of an extent of ac.0-47 centsin Kothapalem village, Kota Mandal, Nellore District, belonging to the petitioner toroad poramboke for the purpose if commissioning a road and pay the same to thepetitioner.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.V.SUNDARARAJAN
Counsel for the RespondentS: GP 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:
T h i s writ petition is filed seeking a writ ofMandamus directing therespondents to determine the amount of compensation payable towards the transferof the land of the petitioner in S.No.1715/2 of an extent of Ac.0-47 cents situated atKothapalem village, Kota Mandal, Nellore District, to road poramboke for thepurpose of commissioning a road and pay the same to the petitioner.
The brief facts that lead to filing of the writ petition are as follows:
It is stated that the family of the petitioner has owned an extent of Ac 0-98 cents inS.No.1715 of Kothapalem, Girijan colony and also residential area with highpotential value and that the said Survey No., was sub-divided in the year 1986 andan extent of ac 0-47 cents in S.No.1715/2 belonging to the petitioner was transferredto road poramboke without the consent of the petitioner and accordinglyimplemented in the village accounts for the purpose of commissioning a road lead toGudur-Tupilipalem road besides commissioning an approach road for a Sallakaluvaroad bridge, for which land the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest besides solatium thereon and other benefits. It is furtherstated that though the respondents admitted the claim, as they failed to initiate anyproceedings for payment of the compensation to the petitioner inspite of his repeatedreminders and notices, the petitioner approached the Consumer Redressal Forum,Nellore, in C.D.No. 409/1992 for necessary relief but the same was opposed by theauthorities on point of jurisdiction. It is further stated that the action of the authoritiesin not directing the amount of compensation to be paid is arbitrary. Hence, the writpetition.
Heard the Counsel on both sides.
I have perused the averments and the material available on record. A copy of theletter addressed by the Executive Engineer, Gudur, dated 31.5.1989, to the writpetitioner is found from the material papers, informing him that some land situated in S.No:1715 of Kothapalem village was taken possession for laying of ThupilipalemGudur Road and in that connection, if the said land belonged to the writ petitioner,they assured for payment of proper compensation taking into consideration thepotential value of the land in question.
In view of the letter, it is for the writ petitioner to prove before the authoritiesconcerned that the land in question belongs to him. At this stage of the proceedings,the scope of the writ petition is very limited and as such, the aspects as to whetherthe land in question belongs to the petitioner or not etc., facts cannot be decided inthis writ petition.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the copyof the letter addressed by the Executive Engineer, I feel that it would suffice, if thepetitioner is afforded liberty to make an appropriate application before the firstrespondent for the appropriate relief within a period of eight weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order and on such application, the 1[st] respondent shalldispose of the same within a period of eight Weeks thereafter, in accordance withlaw.
Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
_________________
T. MEENA KUMARI, J
Dt. 30/12/2004
Kvrk
To
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, STATE OF A.P, NELLORE
2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS NELLORE NELLORE
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINNER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS
GUDUR, NELLORE DISTRICT
4. Two CCs to GP for Land Acquisition, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad(OUT)
5. Two CD copies.