Writ Appeal No. 1324 of 2016. Case: K. Balraj and Ors. Vs Y. Sandeep Reddy and Ors.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)

Case NumberWrit Appeal No. 1324 of 2016
JudgesRamesh Ranganathan, Actg. C.J. and A. Shankar Narayana, J.
IssueLand Acquisition Act
Judgement DateDecember 08, 2016
CourtHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)


Ramesh Ranganathan, Actg. C.J.

  1. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 37048 of 2015 dated 25.11.2015 by respondents 7 to 12 in the Writ Petition. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed W.P. No. 37048 of 2015 to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to acquire land admeasuring Acs. 45.00 covered by the survey numbers mentioned therein during the pendency of O.S. No. 638 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy, as being arbitrary and illegal and contrary to G.O. Ms. No. 45, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 22.7.2015; and, consequently, to set aside the proceedings dated 2.11.2015. They filed W.P.M.P. No. 47704 of 2015 to direct the respondents not to pay/disburse compensation to respondent Nos. 7 to 12 in respect of the said land.

  2. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge took note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that the objection of the respondents-writ petitioners had been received by the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer; a report had also been obtained regarding the land from the Tahsildar; the petitioners had filed copies of I.A. Nos. 378 and 377 of 2015 in O.S. No. 638 of 2006; and since the matter was subjudice before the competent Civil Court, payment of compensation for the acquired land was deferred awaiting adjudication by the competent Civil Court.

  3. Recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader, the learned Single Judge held that it was evident that the compensation amount was not being disbursed awaiting orders from the competent Civil Court in the suit; as such, the apprehension of the respondents-Writ Petitioners, that compensation amount would be paid to the appellants, was not substantiated; the Special Grade Deputy Collector had himself deferred payment of the compensation amount; and since the parties were already before the competent Civil Court, payment of compensation would abide by the orders of the Civil Court in the aforesaid suit. The Writ Petition was, accordingly, disposed of.

  4. Sri P. Shiv Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, would contend that the said order could not have been passed without the appellants herein (respondents 7 to 12 in the writ petition) being put on notice, and without being given an opportunity of being heard; such an undertaking...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT