Telangana High Court
WP/36346/2012 of Bolgam Ramakrishna Vs The District Collector, on 31 December 2012
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.36252 and 36346 of 2012 WRIT PETITION No.36252 of 2012 Date: 31.12.2012 Between: Manuka Srinivas and another. ..... Petitioners And: The District Collector, Karimnagar District and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri V.V.Ramana Rao
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.36252 and 36346 of 2012
WRIT PETITION No.36252 of 2012
Between:
Date: 31.12.2012
Manuka Srinivas and another.
And:
..... Petitioners
The District Collector, KarimnagarDistrict and another.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri V.V.Ramana Rao Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition
AND
WRIT PETITION No.36346 of 2012
Between:
Date: 31.12.2012
Bolgam Ramakrishna
And:
..... Petitioner
The District Collector, KarimnagarDistrict and another.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.V.Ramana Rao Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
Since both the Writ Petitions raise commonquestions of fact and law, they are heard and beingdisposed of together.
The petitioners in Writ Petition No.36252 of 2012were assigned Ac.0-38 guntas and Ac.0-39 guntas,respectively and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.36346of 2012 was assigned Ac.2-02 guntas.
These lands were admittedly utilised by therespondents for providing house sites to Mid ManairProject displaced families of Chintaltana Village of SircillaMandal. However, ex gratia was not paid to thepetitioners. Therefore, they have filed these WritPetitions for a Mandamus to direct the respondents topay ex gratia to them.
On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.2-Revenue Divisional Officer, Sircilla Division ofKarimnagar District, filed counter-affidavits, whereinwhile inter alia admitting that the lands assigned to thepetitioners were utilised for provision of house sites, hestated that the payment of ex gratia to the petitionerswas kept in abeyance as they were suspected to beminors at the time of assignment. It is further stated thatthe District Collector, Karimnagar, was addressed toclarify as to whether ex gratia can be paid to thepetitioners and that in turn, the District Collector hascalled for a further report on the assignments made tothe petitioners. It is, accordingly, stated that as theenquiry is pending, as soon as instructions are receivedfrom respondent No.1, appropriate action would betaken.
At the hearing, learned Assistant GovernmentPleader for Land Acquisition is unable to point out as towhether by any statutory provision or executiveinstructions, grant of assignments to minors isprohibited.
In my opinion, unless and until the law containssuch prohibition, granting of assignments to minorscannot be per se held to be illegal or void. Therespondents are, therefore, directed to examine thisissue and if it is found that no prohibition of assignmentsin favour of minors is envisaged, they shall pay ex gratiato the petitioners. An appropriate notice in this regardshall be issued to the petitioners by respondent No.1within one month from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. Within two weeks from the date of receipt ofsuch notice from respondent No.1, the petitioners shallfile their replies. Thereafter, respondent No.1 shall holdan enquiry by giving the petitioners an opportunity ofbeing heard either in person or through their lawyers andtake appropriate decision in the light of the observationsmade hereinabove. Respondent No.1 shall complete thisprocess and pass appropriate orders within a period ofthree months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petitionis disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions,W.P.M.P.Nos.46052 and 46162 of 2012 filed by thepetitioners for interim relief are dismissed as infructuous.
____________________________
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNAREDDY
31[st] January 2012DR