Telangana High Court
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs Vanka Lakshmi, on 9 November, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, N.V.Shravan Kumar
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1793 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 14.
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.30463 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 14 filed the writ petition,
namely W.P.No.30463 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
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 14 were not in
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 14 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 14 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 14 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
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
