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