THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1798 of 2013
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Ms. P.Bhavana Rao, learned Government Pleader for
Land Acquisition for the appellants.
Mr. R.R.Kalyan, learned counsel for respondents No.1
to 5.
2. This intra court appeal has been filed against the
order dated 21.09.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge
by which the petition filed by the appellants seeking review
of the order passed in W.P.No.30441 of 2011 dated
27.01.2012 has been dismissed.
3. Facts
giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that respondents No.1 to 5 filed the writ petition, namely W.P.No.30441 of 2011, in which a grievance was made that even though they were assignees of the land in question, the land allotted to them was utilised for the 2 benefit of the Andhra Pradesh Generation Corporation Limited. However, ex gratia amount to which they were entitled, was not paid. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 27.01.2012 inter alia on the ground that they were assignees of the land in question and the assignment granted in their favour was not cancelled. Therefore, they were entitled to the ex gratia payment. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed a petition seeking review of the order dated 27.01.2012 passed in the said writ petition. The aforesaid review petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge inter alia on the ground that the order under review does not warrant any interference in exercise of review jurisdiction.
4. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
5. Learned Government Pleader for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that respondents No.1 to 5 were not in 3 possession of the land in question and therefore, alternate lands were allotted to them at some other location.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 has submitted that no case for grant of review has been made out.
7. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.
8. Admittedly, the land in question was assigned in favour of respondents No.1 to 5 in the year 1991. No proceeding was initiated for resumption of the land, which was assigned to them. The compensation was paid by the appellants to the persons who were allegedly in occupation of the land in question. Learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly found that respondents No.1 to 5 were the assignees in respect of the land in question and they have been deprived of their right to claim the ex gratia payment. The order passed by the learned Single Judge neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record. The learned Single 4 Judge, therefore, has rightly dismissed the review petition filed by the appellants.
9. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ______________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J 09.11.2023 vs