WRIT PETITION 36265 of 2018 on 16 November 2013

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 2 to 4 in not paying the compensation to the petitioner in respect of the land Ac.1.47 cents in Sy.No.338 situated at Padamati-nayunipalli Village, Marripadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District(acquired under “TGP.No.145”) as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to pay compensation to the petitioner in respect of the above property”

2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband was the owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.1.47 cents in Sy.No.338 along with other lands situated at Padamatinayunipalli Village, Marripadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The Government issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 16.11.2013 intending to acquire the lands situated in Padamatinayunipalli Village, Marripadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District for construction of Sri Anam Sanjeeva Reddy High Level Lift Canal, under Balancing Reservoir No.1 under Somasila Project. The subject land was also notified in the said notification and the name of the petitioner was shown as the owner and possessor of the same. Pending the acquisition proceedings, the petitioner’s husband died on 15.07.2014 leaving the petitioner along as his legal representative.

3. It is further contended that, subsequent to the death of her husband, the petitioner made an application through online on 23.08.2017 requesting the respondent authorities to incorporate the name of the petitioner in place of her husband. At this juncture, respondent authorities informed the petitioner that, the respondents 5 to 7 claiming to be the wife and children of petitioner’s husband requested to pay compensation for the acquired property to them. The petitioner has also got issued a legal notice dated 18.03.2015 requesting the respondent authorities not to disburse the compensation amount to the Respondent Nos.5 to 7 and requested to pay compensation to the petitioner. It is further case that,Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are taking steps to prepare a cheque for disbursement of the amounts to Respondent Nos.5 to 7. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Respondent No.3 filed his counter denying all the allegations inter-alia contending that as there are rival claims between the petitioner and the Respondent Nos.5 to 7, the amount will be deposited into Court after determination of the claim. It is further stated that no compensation was paid to anyone and at the time of award enquiry the petitioner may file relevant documents to prove their right and title over the property and action will be taken after conducting the award enquiry and after careful examination of the documents filed by the petitioner and others to prove their right and title over the land. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. Heard Sri Narasimhulu Parise, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri Sudhakar, learned counsel appearing for V.Vinod K.Reddy for the unofficial respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent authorities are not paying compensation in respect of the land Ac.1.47 cents in Sy.No.338 situated at Padamati-nayunipalli Village, Marripadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District to the petitioner and moreover, the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are taking steps for payment of the said amount to the Respondent Nos.5 to 7. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed and prays to pass appropriate orders.

7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submitted that the 3[rd] respondent filed his counter stating that action will be taken after conducting Award Enquiry and after careful examination of the documents filed by the petitioner or others to prove their right and title over the land, as such there is nothing for adjudication, hence, prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.

8. On the other hand, Sri Sudhakar, learned counsel appearing for Sri V.Vinod K.Reddy for the unofficial respondents contended that the Writ Petition may be disposed of by recording the submission of the 3[rd] respondent in his counter and it would be appropriate if a direction is given to the concerned authority to take a decision by conducting enquiry after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the unofficial respondents.

9. Taking the submissions of both the counsel into consideration and since this Court cannot adjudicate the disputed question as to who among the petitioner and unofficial Respondent Nos.5 to 7 is entitled to get compensation amount for the acquired land, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

i) The petitioner as well as Respondent Nos.5 to 7 are at liberty to submit their claim/objection in relation to their right over the acquired land before appropriate authority at appropriate time.

ii) On such, the authority is directed to dispose of the objection by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass reasoned order.

No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

________________________

JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

30[th] December, 2022 TM

TM

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION NO.36265 OF 2018

Dated :30.12.2022