HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
W.P.No.1761 of 2015
16-02-2015
Rayavarapu Venkata Lakshmi and another .petitioners
The State of A.P. and three others. Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad
Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Spl. G.P. for Assignment
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2012(6) SCJ 862 or SCALE 2012(9) 142
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
W.P.No. 1761 of 2015
DATE: 16.02.2015
O R D E R:-
The petitioners assert that in the year 1976, the
Government, for the purpose of quarrying the stone for
construction / repair of Godavari Barrage in Rajahmundry,
East Govadari District, acquired a total an extent of Ac.29.14
cents of land in various survey numbers including the lands
belonging to the petitioners in an extent of Ac.3.40 cents in
R.S.Nos.43/7 and 44/3A by virtue of an Award No.12/1980,
dated 01.05.1980. While so, it is stated that after completion
of quarrying operations, the authorities redelivered possession
of the lands to all the original land-owners including the
1st petitioners husband and the respondents-authorities also
issued Delivery Certificates vide Reference No.D935/90, dated
24.11.1990 to the other land owners, but did not issue
Delivery Certificate to the husband of the 1st petitioner. After
demise of the 1st petitioners husband, the petitioners made
representation dated 25.06.2014 requesting the
2nd respondent-District Collector to issue Delivery Certificate.
Now, the petitioners grievance is that even though the
2nd respondent-District Collector forwarded their
representation to the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional
Officer, vide proceedings dated 16.07.2014, the
3rd respondent has not taken any action thereon so far.
Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking appropriate
directions.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in
similar circumstances, this Court, by order dated 18.06.1998
in W.P.No. 23867 of 1996, had directed the 3rd respondent-
Revenue Divisional Officer to handover possession of the lands
to the petitioners therein within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of the order. He further submits
that the petitioners also are similarly situated, but there is a
hostile discrimination on the part of the respondents in not
considering the petitioners request and nor passing similar
orders to that effect.
On the other hand, Sri D.Prasad, the learned Special
Government Pleader for Assignment has submitted that as per
the instructions dated 14.02.2015 received from the
Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry, the petitioners herein had been
paid compensation for the lands acquired from them and
further when they filed O.P.Nos. 13 and 14 of 1982 seeking
enhancement of the compensation, the enhanced
compensation was also ordered and deposited in their favour.
It is also submitted that as per the written instructions, the
Chief Engineer, Dowleswaram, vide his letter dated
11.09.1989, reported that their Department proposed to
retain certain extents of lands in Sy.Nos.43/7, 44/3A, 43/6B,
67/3A and 74/2 admeasuring Ac.5.85 cents including the
petitioners lands for carrying out balance works, maintenance
works and flood protection works, etc., and accordingly,
retained the petitioners lands, as such, the petitioners
request cannot be considered.
Having considered the rival submissions and having
perused the order dated 18.06.1998 passed in W.P.No. 23867
of 1996, this Court is not inclined to issue a mandamus in
favour of the petitioners based on the order passed by this
Court inasmuch as that order is passed in the facts of the case
and the same cannot be treated as a binding precedent
especially in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court
reported in V. Chandrasekharan v. Administrative Officer
holding the view contra to the view expressed by the learned
single judge. However, this Court deems it appropriate to
direct the respondents to take a decision on the
representation dated 25.06.2014 said to have been made by
the petitioners, in accordance with law and communicate the
same to the petitioners within a period of three months from
today.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed
of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition,
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of
as infructuous.
_______________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
16.02.2015
W.P.No.1761 of 2015
16-02-2015
Rayavarapu Venkata Lakshmi and another .petitioners
The State of A.P. and three others. Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad
Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Spl. G.P. for Assignment
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2012(6) SCJ 862 or SCALE 2012(9) 142
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
W.P.No. 1761 of 2015
DATE: 16.02.2015
O R D E R:-
The petitioners assert that in the year 1976, the
Government, for the purpose of quarrying the stone for
construction / repair of Godavari Barrage in Rajahmundry,
East Govadari District, acquired a total an extent of Ac.29.14
cents of land in various survey numbers including the lands
belonging to the petitioners in an extent of Ac.3.40 cents in
R.S.Nos.43/7 and 44/3A by virtue of an Award No.12/1980,
dated 01.05.1980. While so, it is stated that after completion
of quarrying operations, the authorities redelivered possession
of the lands to all the original land-owners including the
1st petitioners husband and the respondents-authorities also
issued Delivery Certificates vide Reference No.D935/90, dated
24.11.1990 to the other land owners, but did not issue
Delivery Certificate to the husband of the 1st petitioner. After
demise of the 1st petitioners husband, the petitioners made
representation dated 25.06.2014 requesting the
2nd respondent-District Collector to issue Delivery Certificate.
Now, the petitioners grievance is that even though the
2nd respondent-District Collector forwarded their
representation to the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional
Officer, vide proceedings dated 16.07.2014, the
3rd respondent has not taken any action thereon so far.
Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking appropriate
directions.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in
similar circumstances, this Court, by order dated 18.06.1998
in W.P.No. 23867 of 1996, had directed the 3rd respondent-
Revenue Divisional Officer to handover possession of the lands
to the petitioners therein within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of the order. He further submits
that the petitioners also are similarly situated, but there is a
hostile discrimination on the part of the respondents in not
considering the petitioners request and nor passing similar
orders to that effect.
On the other hand, Sri D.Prasad, the learned Special
Government Pleader for Assignment has submitted that as per
the instructions dated 14.02.2015 received from the
Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry, the petitioners herein had been
paid compensation for the lands acquired from them and
further when they filed O.P.Nos. 13 and 14 of 1982 seeking
enhancement of the compensation, the enhanced
compensation was also ordered and deposited in their favour.
It is also submitted that as per the written instructions, the
Chief Engineer, Dowleswaram, vide his letter dated
11.09.1989, reported that their Department proposed to
retain certain extents of lands in Sy.Nos.43/7, 44/3A, 43/6B,
67/3A and 74/2 admeasuring Ac.5.85 cents including the
petitioners lands for carrying out balance works, maintenance
works and flood protection works, etc., and accordingly,
retained the petitioners lands, as such, the petitioners
request cannot be considered.
Having considered the rival submissions and having
perused the order dated 18.06.1998 passed in W.P.No. 23867
of 1996, this Court is not inclined to issue a mandamus in
favour of the petitioners based on the order passed by this
Court inasmuch as that order is passed in the facts of the case
and the same cannot be treated as a binding precedent
especially in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court
reported in V. Chandrasekharan v. Administrative Officer
holding the view contra to the view expressed by the learned
single judge. However, this Court deems it appropriate to
direct the respondents to take a decision on the
representation dated 25.06.2014 said to have been made by
the petitioners, in accordance with law and communicate the
same to the petitioners within a period of three months from
today.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed
of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition,
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of
as infructuous.
_______________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
16.02.2015
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.