Telangana High Court
WP/10900/1993 of SARVEPALLI DANIEL NELLORE DT AND ANOTHER Vs SECY.REVENUE DEPT.HYD AND 3 OTHERS on 30 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO : 10900 of 1993 Between: 1. Sarvepalli Daniel, s/o. Pitchaiah, Aged 85 years, r/o.Dandigunta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI
WRIT PETITION NO : 10900 of 1993
Between:
1. Sarvepalli Daniel, s/o. Pitchaiah, Aged 85 years, r/o.Dandigunta village, VidavalurMandal, Nellore District.Mandal, Nellore District.
2. Sarvepalli Joseph, s/o.Pitchaiah, Aged 82 years, r/o.Dandigunta village, VidavalurMandal, Nellore District.Mandal, Nellore District.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad
2. The District Collector, Nellore.
3. The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Department, Nellore.
4. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Vidavalur Mandal, 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 or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus, declaring that the petitioners are entitled to compensation on marketvalue in respect of the lands owned by them in S.No. 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317, 1318,1319 and 454 of Varini Village, Vidavalur Mandal, Nellore District and further directthe respondents herein to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners forthwith; Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.BALA KRISHNA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV.
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 seeking to declare that the petitioners are entitled forcompensation on market value for their lands in Sy.No. 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317,1318, 1319 and 454 of Varini village and for a direction to the respondents to paycompensation to the petitioners for the utilization of their lands by the respondents.
The facts of the case as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, innutshell, are as follows:
It is stated that originally the mother of the petitioners purchased the lands inquestion during the years 1941, 1942, 1944 and 1945 under various registered saledeeds and developed the same investing huge amounts and by digging bore wellsand later the lands are being cultivated by the petitioners by paying the land revenueand that in 10(1) adangal the name of their mother is shown as pattadar. But asproper mutation could not take place in 10(1) records, the names of the petitionersand their mother and her brother were not included as pattadars in respect of all thesurvey numbers. Subsequently, the respondents took the lands of the petitioners forwidening the Pyderu Canal, without following due process of law and though thepetitioners made several representations to the respondents, they could not get anyreply from the respondents. Thus, the action of the respondents is illegal.
It is also stated that as per the orders of the Government as observed in GOMsNo.185, dt.9-2-1984 and also in GOMs No.43, dt.23.1.1989 the pattadar/owner whocultivates the land even if it is excess land/assigned land, shall be paidcompensation. It was also observed by this Court in W.P.No.7007 of 1988 that theassignees/land owners are entitled for compensation on par with other pattalandowners. Hence, the writ petition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that since a major portion of the landsof the petitioners were taken for widening the canal, without following due process oflaw, the petitioners were deprived of their livelihood and as such they arelegitimately entitled for the payment of market value of the lands by way of
Arguments
compensation. Learned Counsel further contended that in view of the observationsmade by this Court and the apex Court from time to time in many cases that even theassignees are also entitled for compensation on par with the other patta landowners, the petitioners are entitled for compensation and hence he sought adirection to the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioners for theutilization of their lands.
I have perused the material available on record. In this case, no counter affidavit hasbeen filed by the respondents. Except the bald allegations, no material is placedbefore this Court to show as to whether the lands in question have been acquired forthe purpose in question and whether any award has been passed to that effect ornot.
In this view of the matter, I see no merits to entertain this writ petition.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioners are at liberty tomake a proper representation before the authorities concerned in consonance withthe provisions of the Land Acquisition Act seeking appropriate relief, if they sochose.
___________________
(T. MEENA KUMARI, J)
Dt 30-12-2004
Kvrk
To
1. The Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad
2. The District Collector, Nellore.
3. The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Department, Nellore.
4. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Vidavalur Mandal, Nellore District.
5. Two CCs to GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV.
High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)
6. Two CD copies.