L.A.Act - wrong payment - remedy is a suit not a writ= writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in paying compensation to respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary.= It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that in response to the public notices issued under Sections 9(1) and 10(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), he has made claim for payment of compensation asserting his right as the owner of the said properties. The petitioner has also not pleaded that at least after the award was passed, he has made any request for reference of the dispute to the competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Having not claimed his rights at an appropriate time, the petitioner appeared to have approached respondent No.2 after the award was passed and compensation was paid to respondent No.3. I am, therefore, of the opinion that no Mandamus can be issued to respondent No.2 as prayed for by the petitioner. The petitioner may, however, be free to approach the competent civil Court for recovery of the compensation amount from respondent No.3.


HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.3209 of 2013

Date: 05.02.2013

Between:

R. Devadranath Reddy                                       ... Petitioner

And

The Collector,
Mahabubnagar District and two others            ... Respondents


Counsel for the Petitioner          : Sri M. Damodar Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents     : Assistant Government
                                                   Pleader for Land Acquisition.
                                               





The Court made the following:
ORDER
:
          This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in paying compensation to respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary.

          It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he is the rightful owner of land admeasuring Acs.3-25 guntas and   Acs.2-15 guntas in Survey Nos.386 and 244 respectively, of Kannaiahpally Village, Kothakota Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, and that respondent No. 2 has illegally paid compensation to respondent No.3.

A perusal of the representation made by the petitioner to respondent No.2 shows that even though the petitioner is the rightful owner of the said properties, cheques were issued in favour of respondent No.3 without notice to the petitioner.

It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that in response to the public notices issued under Sections 9(1) and 10(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), he has made claim for payment of compensation asserting his right as the owner of the said properties.  The petitioner has also not pleaded that at least after the award was passed, he has made any request for reference of the dispute to the competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Act.  Having not claimed his rights at an appropriate time, the petitioner appeared to have approached respondent No.2 after the award was passed and compensation was paid to respondent No.3.  I am, therefore, of the opinion that no Mandamus can be issued to respondent No.2 as prayed for by the petitioner.  The petitioner may, however, be free to approach the competent civil Court for recovery of the compensation amount from respondent No.3.

Subject to the liberty given as above, the writ petition is dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.3973 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed as infructuous.

  ________________________
                                       C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

Date: 05.02.2013
SSV/DR

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.