Telangana High Court
WP/12504/2002 of Sadaram Visweswara Rao Vs The Special Deputy Collector, on 29 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE WRIT PETITION No.12504 of 2002 Between: Sadaram Visweswara Rao and others. …
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE,ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNAREDDY
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OFDECEMBER,TWO THOUSAND NINE
WRIT PETITION No.12504of 2002
Between:Sadaram Visweswara Rao and others.
…
Petitioners
And:
The Special Deputy Collector (Land Protection),Visakhapatnam.
…
Respondent.
Counsel for the Petitioners: None
Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue.
This 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:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to setaside notices, dated 1-6-2002, issued by therespondent, whereby he directed the petitioners tocollect the banker cheques from the office of the MandalRevenue Officer, Visakhapatnam.
There was a dispute regarding a piece of landadmeasuring Ac.0.92 cents situated in Kancharapalemvillage, coming under the limits of the thenVisakhapatnam Municipality. LGC No.109 of 1989 wasregistered against the petitioners before the specialCourt constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing(Prohibition) Act, 1982. By order dated 4-4-1984 thespecial Court declared the petitioners as land grabbers.The said order was challenged by the petitioners in WritPetition No.9906 of 1994. This Court by order, dated 17-1-1996, while confirming the order of thespecial Court, directed the petitioners to remit themarket value of the land at the rate of Rs.250/- persquare yard within three months from the date of thatorder, in lieu of their eviction. This Court stipulated thecondition that if such payment is not made, thepetitioners shall be evicted from the land in question, asordered by the special Court.
The time granted by this Court was subsequentlyextended upto 2-9-1996. Petitioner No.1 sent a cheque dated 2-9-1996 for Rs.1,62,434/- and petitioner No.3sent a cheque on the same day for Rs.3,24,867/-. Boththe cheques, which were evidently received by therespondent after expiry of the extended time, weredishonoured. However, petitioner No.1 sent anothercheque, dated 10-11-1997, which was received by theoffice of the Collector on 12-11-1997 for the sum ofRs.1,62,450/-. Petitioner No.3 also sent anothercheques, dated 29-1-1997 for Rs.3,24,880/-. In additionto these cheques, the petitioners sent separate payorders for other amounts. All these amounts werereceived by the office of the respondent and wereretained with them till the impugned notices wereissued, wherein the petitioners have been called uponto take back the amounts sent through banker’scheques on the ground that they failed to pay theamounts within the time stipulated by this Court.
The respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit.The substance of the counter-affidavit is to the effectthat as the petitioners failed to pay the amounts withinthe time stipulated by this Court, the amounts weresought to be returned.
Admittedly, the petitioners failed to pay a part ofthe amounts within the time stipulated by this Court. Thefact, however, remains that the amounts were receivedby the respondent without any demur and were retainedfor more than five years. It is only thereafter, that therespondent has suddenly woken up to realize that thepetitioners failed to make payments within the timestipulated by this Court. Neither the impugned notices,
nor the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent hadgiven any explanation for receiving the chequessubmitted belatedly and for not returning the cheques,even if they were received by mistake, within areasonable time. Though, technically, the petitionersfailed to comply with the condition imposed by thisCourt, with regard to the time within which the paymentwas to be made, the respondent had received the saidamount paid by way of banker cheques/pay orders. Inthe face of this undeniable fact, the far too belatedaction of the respondent in seeking to return the amountis wholly arbitrary and irrational. Had the respondentbeen prompt enough, he would not have either receivedthe cheques or returned the same within a reasonabletime. Having not done so, the respondent cannot bepermitted to reopen the issue after passage ofsubstantial time. The petitioners have eventuallycomplied with the order of this Court by paying theentire amount towards compensation for the value ofthe land belonging to the Government and permitted tobe retained by them. In this view of the matter, manifestinjustice will be caused to the petitioners if the settledrights are allowed to be unsettled after a long lapse oftime.
For the above mentioned reasons, the WritPetition is allowed and the impugned notices arequashed.
------------------------------------
C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY,J
Date:29-12-2009MNR