Pothala Kodandaramaswamy Died, ... vs Prl Secy, I Cad Dept., Hyd 2 Ot
2022 Latest Caselaw 2719 AP

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

              WRIT PETITION No.38767 of 2017

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

"...to issue Writ, or Direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents authorities in paying only ex gratia adopting 2002-2003 rates in the year 2008 and not paying the compensation amount to the petitioners structures in Chukkayapalle H/o Thimmarajupalle, Nandalur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District is illegal, arbitrary and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to pay compensation for the 25 gutted structures as per Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to set aside the order passed aby the 3rd respondent in Ref.No.D494/2005, dated 21.10.2017 is contrary to the judgment of the Larger bench of this Hon'ble Court passed in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division and others v Mekala Pandu and others reported in AIR 2004 AP 250 and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners argued the case. He drew the attention of this Court

to the fact that the draft Notification for acquisition of the land

was published on 02.11.1995 under Section 4 (1) of the Land

Acquisition Act. The Award was finally passed on 11.12.1997.

The structures standing in the land of the petitioners were

included in Section 4 (1) Notification. However, after Section

4(1) Notification published, a fire accident occurred on

13.01.1997 and the houses in the property were gutted in fire

accident. The respondents have not paid compensation for the

houses that were gutted. Learned counsel submits that only

ex gratia was given and no compensation was paid. Learned

for the petitioners, therefore, argues that the petitioners are

entitled to compensation for the structures that were existing

on the land. He drew the attention of this Court to the earlier

Writ Petition and contempt case filed i.e., W.P.No.2202 of 2017

and C.C.No.1832 of 2017. He also relied upon case law that is

mentioned in the Writ Petition and also the judgment of a

learned single Judge of the combined High Court. Learned

counsel argues that the petitioners are entitled to

compensation for the gutted houses also.

Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition in

reply argues that the petitioners are only entitled to the ex

gratia and not for compensation. He also draws the attention

of this Court to the order passed in W.P.No.2202 of 2017,

wherein the present petitioners were also the writ petitioners.

It is pointed out that this order was passed on merits and the

learned single Judge clearly held that the Writ Petition was

disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to submit a

representation. The learned single Judge, according to the

learned Government Pleader, took note of the fact situation and

clearly held that, if for any reason the petitioners'

representation was negatived / not properly considered, they

should file civil suit only and not another Writ. Learned

Government Pleader submits that this order has become final

as it has not been challenged. He points out that the very same

petitioners cannot file another writ seeking prayer from this

Court praying the compensation for the structures therein. He

also submits that even in C.C.No.1832 of 2017 it is held that

remedies available to the petitioners are left open. Therefore,

learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioners had

to file a Civil suit within the period of limitation after the

disposal of the representation and not to file another writ. He,

therefore, submits that on this ground alone the Writ Petition

should be dismissed.

Sri D. Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners in rejoinder submits that in the contempt

application the learned single Judge held that all the remedies

of the parties are left open after dismissal of the representation

and therefore the Writ is maintainable.

This Court after considering the submissions notices

that there is a disputed question of fact in this case viz., the

houses / huts (Bodha Roof Houses) that were said to be

existing on the land, which were supposedly gutted in fire on

13.01.1997. Apart from this the larger issue raised by the

learned Government Pleader viz., the order passed by the

learned single Judge in W.P.No.2202 of 2017 is important. The

learned single Judge gave liberty to the petitioners herein to

make representation. He held that if such a representation was

negatived or is not considered properly etc., the petitioners

should file a civil suit after complying with Section 80 CPC. He

also clearly held that the petitioners cannot file another Writ

Petition. After this Writ was disposed, the impugned order

dated 21.10.2017 was passed on the representation submitted.

The respondents rejected the request for compensation holding

that ex gratia was already paid. Questioning the same the

present Writ Petition is filed.

In the opinion of this Court the order passed by the

learned single Judge in the contempt application is not

contrary to the order dated 24.07.2017. In the contempt

application extracts of which have mentioned in the Writ

affidavit itself the remedies available to the petitioner were left

open. However, in the order dated 24.07.2017 the learned

single Judge clearly held that if the representation is disposed

of and the petitioners are not satisfied with the same they have

to file "civil suit after complying with section 80 of CPC". This

part of the order "Civil suit after complying with Section 80

CPC" makes the issue very clear. As issues of fact are involved

the learned Judge directed the parties to file a suit after

complying with the statutory Section 80 CPC Notice. This order

has become final. It is between the same parties to the present

writ petition. This order was not challenged by the petitioners.

Therefore, their conduct clearly estops them from filing another

Writ Petition. The said order is binding on the petitioners and

they cannot therefore file another Writ Petition.

Hence, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the

order dated 24.07.2017 in W.P.No.2202 of 2017 the petitioners

are not entitled to any relief in the present Writ Petition. The

Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order

as to costs.

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending,

if any, shall also stand closed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date:24.06.2022 Ssv

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

WRIT PETITION No.38767 of 2017 Date:24.06.2022 ssv