Singana Srinivasulu Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Prasad
2022 Latest Caselaw 9238 AP

                                                                             RC,J
                                                              W.P.No.8379 of 2019
                                      1


             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

                    WRIT PETITION No. 8379 of 2019

ORDER:

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that, pursuant to the

notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Land, 1894, (for

short, 'the Act') issued by the 3rd respondent for submersion under

Somasila Project, the petitioner's land in an extent of Ac.0-68 cents

situated in Survey No.561/3 of Malinenipatnam village, Atloor Mandal, YSR

Kadapa District with a well has been acquired and invoking urgency clause

under Section 17(4) of the Act, enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act was

dispensed with and an award vide Award No.48/86/87 dated 19.09.1986

was passed by the 3rd respondent, as per which an amount of Rs.5,956.98

paise was paid to father's brother of the petitioner and towards 1/13 th

share in the well of Rs.72,819-73 paise was kept in revenue deposit and on

05.01.1987, the petitioner's father appeared before the Land Acquisition

Officer and received the said amount under protest. It is the further case

of the petitioner that some of the claimants filed applications before the 3rd

respondent under Section 18 of the Act to refer the matter and accordingly

the matter was referred and numbered as L.A.O.P.No.2441 of 1988 on the

file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, which was

disposed of enhancing compensation. Aggrieved thereby, the Government RC,J W.P.No.8379 of 2019

preferred appeal vide L.A.A.S.No.223 of 2004 before this Court and when

the said appeal was referred to Lok Adalat, the claim so far as the

respondents 1,4,8,10 & 11 was settled and later the said appeal was

dismissed on 29.01.2008 confirming the enhancement made by the

reference Court in so far as other claimants 2,3,5,6,7 and 9, among whom

the 9th claimant is father of the petitioner. Later the 3 rd respondent

prepared statement in reference No.D/67/2016, dated 21.09.2017,

whereby an amount of Rs.2,72,484/- was fixed towards balance amount of

the well. It is the further case of the petitioner that since 1/13th share in

the well was paid to his father, the balance amount arrived at by the 3rd

respondent has to be paid to the petitioner's father. The petitioner's father

died in the year 2000 and the petitioner became entitled to the said

amount of Rs.2,72,484/- along with statutory benefits like interest,

solatium etc., and though the 3rd respondent has sent proposals to the 2nd

respondent way back in the year 2017, the same was not implemented.

Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition.

2. Heard Sri Ch.C.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,

and the learned Assistant Government Pleaders for irrigation & Command

Area development and Land Acquisition.

RC,J W.P.No.8379 of 2019

3. Sri Ch.C.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while

reiterating the contents of the writ petition has drawn the attention of this

Court to the proposals sent by the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Rajampet

to the Special Collector, Kadapa, wherein it was stated that upon

verification of the office records the total awarded amount of Rs.72,819-13

which was kept in revenue deposit was paid to father of the petitioner as a

full share and contended that since the petitioner's father was paid the

total awarded amount recognizing him to be the person entitled to receive

the awarded amount, he became entitled to receive the balance amount of

Rs.2,72,484/- arrived at by the Reference Court in LAOP No.2441 of 1988,

which was confirmed by this Court in AS No.223 of 2004 and consequent

to the death of his father, the petitioner became entitled to receive the

said amount. As the respondent authorities failed to pay the compensation

amount despite lapse of considerable time the present writ petition has

been filed and prayed to direct the respondents to pay compensation to

the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleaders for

Irrigation and Land Acquisition submitted that if the petitioner makes any

fresh representation duly enclosing the orders of this Court passed in

A.S.No.223 of 2004, the authorities will take steps according to law.

RC,J W.P.No.8379 of 2019

5. To the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

reported no objection, however requested this Court to fix timeframe for

disposal of the representation of the petitioner.

6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by both the

learned counsel, instead of keeping this writ petition pending, this Court is

inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

(a) The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh representation to the 3rd respondent- Special Deputy Collector, SSP, Unit-IV, Rajampet, raising all the pleas that are raised in this writ petition duly enclosing all the relevant material including the judgment of this Court in A.S.No.223 of 2004 within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

(b) On receipt of such representation, the 3 rd respondent- Special Deputy Collector shall consider the said representation in accordance with law, affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and communicate the same to the petitioner, within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter

(c) There shall be no order as to costs

As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.

_________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 1st December, 2022 RR RC,J W.P.No.8379 of 2019

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION No.8379 of 2019

1st December, 2022

RR