Telangana High Court
WP/27973/2007 of Chandra Reddy (Died) as per LRs Vs The Land Acquisition officer-cum-Revenue Divisional on 28 December 2007
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27973 of 2007 28.12.2007 Between: Chandra Reddy (died) as per L.Rs. C. Veera Reddy & others … Petitioners AND The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioners : Sri N.
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.
Conclusion
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 27973 of 2007
28.12.2007
Between:
Chandra Reddy (died) as per L.Rs.C. Veera Reddy & others … Petitioners
AND
The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad.
… Respondent
Counsel for the petitioners : Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy Counsel for the respondent : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct therespondent to dispose of application dated 24.08.2006 of the petitionerfiled under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,‘the Act’) for re-determination of market value in terms of award dated27.02.2006 in O.P. No. 4 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge,Vikarabad.
In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitionerpleaded that extents of Ac.6.16 guntas and Ac.1.14 guntas of landowned by him in Survey Nos. 429 and 430 respectively of TarigapulaVillage, Dharur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District were acquired undernotification dated 15.05.1996 issued under Section 4(1) anddeclaration issued under Section 6 of the Act. One of the land ownerswhose land was also acquired under the same notification sought forreference under Section 18 of the Act and the respondent referred thesame to the civil Court which was registered as O.P.No.4 of 2001 onthe file of Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad. The petitioner furtherpleaded that the said O.P. was disposed of on 27.02.2006 by partiallyenhancing the compensation. The petitioner claimed that he madecopy application on 01.03.2006 and that copy of the award of the civilCourt was made available to him on 21.08.2006. The petitioner furtherclaimed that he filed an application on 24.08.2006 under Section 28-Aof the Act for re-determination of the compensation. According to thepetitioner, the same was acknowledged by the respondent on the verysame date, namely; 24.08.2006.
Heard Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for thepetitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for LandAcquisition.
As the prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition is innocuous, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the same at theadmission stage. As already noted, the only grievance of the petitioneris that his application dated 24.08.2006 made for re-determination ofcompensation, under Section 28-A of the Act, in terms of the above-mentioned O.P. is not being disposed of by the respondent.
Section 28-A of the Act vests valuable right in the owner of landacquired, but who failed to seek reference under Section 18 for re-determination of compensation on par with the compensation fixed inrespect of other lands for which civil Court enhanced compensationunder Section 18. Therefore, such a valuable right is required to beprotected by the respondent by acting with promptitude. If a personseeks re-determination within the time limit specified in Section 28-Aand if he is able to show that his land is also covered by the samenotification, it is the bounden duty of the respondent to consider theapplication for re-determination and dispose of the same.
The respondent is, therefore, directed to consider theapplication of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within aperiod of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 36577of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of asinfructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J28.12.2007ksld