The District Collector, vs Kannam Rajaiah,
2021 Latest Caselaw 4582 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                   AND
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                WRIT APPEAL No.1536 of 2005


JUDGMENT:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)




     The present writ appeal is arising out of an order

dated 08.07.2005 passed in W.P.No.5799 of 2005.

     The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the writ

petition was preferred by the writ petitioner stating that

the respondents in the writ petition are not conducting

survey and demarcating the land of Ac.0.24 guntas in

Survey No.397 situated at Bhoopalpalli Village and

Mandal, Warangal District and a road is being

constructed over his land. Earlier also a writ petition

was preferred i.e., W.P.No.25952 of 2003 in respect of the

same land and the State Government was permitted to

proceed with the award enquiry and to pass an award.

An order was passed by this Court in W.P.No.25952 of

2003 on 17.12.2003. Thereafter, a second writ petition

was preferred again, against which the present writ

appeal has been filed and the learned Single Judge has

directed the State to redeliver the possession after

conducting the survey.

It has been brought to the notice of this Court that

the road has already been constructed over the land and

a supplementary award has already been issued.

Therefore, the question of redelivering the possession,

which was taken back in 1991, does not arise, especially

when a road has been constructed.

Learned Government Advocate has informed this

Court that a supplementary award has been passed in

the matter and the writ petitioner can certainly be free to

collect the amount towards compensation.

In the light of the aforesaid, the writ appeal stands

partly allowed only to the extent the State Government

has been directed to redeliver the possession to the writ

petitioner.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

___________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 23.12.2021 vs