Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/646/2018 of Snt. Eragana Kondamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 29 December 2023
COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THETWENTYNINETHDAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO: 646 OF 2018 Between: Smt. Eragana Kondamma, W/o Late Venkata Subbaiah, Aged about 58 years,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)FRIDAY,THE TWENTYNINETHDAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 646 OF 2018
Between:
Smt. Eragana Kondamma, W/o Late Venkata Subbaiah, Aged about 58 years,Occ. Agriculture Cooli, R/o Gundalakalva Village, Renigunta Mandal, ChittoorDistrict.
...Petitioner
AND
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.
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department OfLand Acquisition, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi,[Andhra][ Pradesh.]
2. The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District.3. The Special Deputy Collector, Galeru-Nagari-Sujala Sravanthi Unit-1,Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist.
4. The Tahsildar, Renigunta, Chittoor District.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances statedin the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus a. Declare the action of Respondents in not payingthe compensation to the Petitioner to her subject landi.e., Ac.2 Consequentlydirect the Respondent Authorities to pay compensation and other benefits to thePetitioneraspertheprovisionsof TheRighttoFairCompensationandTransparencyin Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(Act 30 of 2013) as expeditiously as possible and c. Pass such other order ororders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper[in] the circumstances of thecase.90 Cents in Sy.No.654/1 of Karkambadi Village, Renigunta Mandal, ChittoorDistrict as per provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency inLand Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013)isarbitrary, illegal and violation of the provisions of the Act 30 2013.
lA NO: 2 OF 2018
Pebtion under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased todirect the respondents to disposal of petitioner representationsdt 09-11-2016and17-04-2017legalnoticedt.20-12-2017intermsoftherighttofaircompensationandtransparencyinlandacquisitionrehabilitationandresettlement Act 2013 as expeditiously as possible preferably within the period of4 in the interest of justice.
lA NO: 3 OF 2018
Betwe(^:1Iof Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department OfLand Acquisition, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh2line District Colector, Chittoor, Chittoor District..3F)e Special Deputy Collector, Galeru-Nagari-Sujala Sravanthi Unit-1Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist.4^ Jhe Tahsildar, Renigunta, Chittoor District.
...Petitioner
AND
Smt. Eragana Kondamma, W/o Late Venkata Subbaiah, Aged about 58 yearsDistrirt^"^'^^^^*^^Gundalakalva Village, Renigunta[Mandal,][ Chittoor’]
...Respondents
•luunder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances[stated]m the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tovacate the interim order passed in WP No. 646 of 2018, dated 19.01.2018.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P VIVEK
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
The Court made the following order:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
Writ Petition No.646 of 2018
ORDER;
ThelearnedGovernmentPleaderforLandAcquisitionappearingfortherespondentswouldsubmitthattherepresentation of the petitioner has already been considered[and]rejected by the respondents.
2. Per contra,the learnedCounselfor the petitioner[would]submit that the petitioner has not been served a copy[of][ the][ said]proceedings.submit that the petitioner has not been served a copy[of][ the][ said]proceedings.
3. If that beso,the respondents are directed forthwithtoforward a copy of the sai,d proceedings rejecting the petitioner’srepresentation within one week from today.forward a copy of the sai,d proceedings rejecting the petitioner’srepresentation within one week from today.
Conclusion
4. Inviewof thesaidorderof endorsementrejectingthepetitioner’s claim, a fresh cause of action has arisen.petitioner’s claim, a fresh cause of action has arisen.
5. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed[of]as having been rendered infructuous by reserving libertyto thepetitioner to agitate his rights, in the event she[desires][ to][ mount]a challenge to the said endorsement of rejecting her[claim.]It ismade clear that all contehtions are left open and the disposal ofas having been rendered infructuous by reserving libertyto thepetitioner to agitate his rights, in the event she[desires][ to][ mount]a challenge to the said endorsement of rejecting her[claim.]It ismade clear that all contehtions are left open and the disposal of this Writ Petition should not be construed as an adverse to the claim of the petitioner. No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,[shall]
stand closed.
Sd/- S.SRINIVASA PRASADASSISTANX^[dISTRAR]
//TRUE COPY//
OFFICER
To,
H COURTMK■r»7Ar4>1,!r'>.h-J*t*'DATED:29/12/2023t"i ORDERf^rANOTfWP.No.646 of 201873:oI 2 MA« 20211mCr/^ Current Section>>?^spatch^i>'1'^\\
DISPOSING OF THE WPWITHOUT COSTS