IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 1416 of 2014 Date: 18.11.2014 Between:
M/s. Elite Hair Studio Hyderabad.
… Appellant And The State of Telangana, rep., by its District Collector, Hyderabad District & others.
… Respondents This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 1416 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.07.2014 by which His Lordship was pleased to dismiss the writ petition.
The appellant-writ petitioner claims to be a tenant in respect of house bearing No.8-2-293/82/A/228, T.S.No.2/6, Ward No.9, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, hereinafter referred to as the said property. The said property was sought to be acquired by the State under the Land Acquisition Act (for short, “the Act”) and necessary notice under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued and objections under Section 5-A of the Act were called for. Thereafter, an award was passed. The appellant has filed the writ petition challenging the said award.
The learned Single Judge, in our view, correctly found that whether the quantum of compensation awarded shall be given to the appellant or not cannot be decided by the writ Court. Moreover, there is a serious dispute as to whether the appellant is entitled to claim any compensation as a tenant, as it is contended by the learned lawyer that the tenancy right has been terminated before the award was passed the appellant is disentitled to claim anything and for this purpose civil suit is pending.
On the aforesaid background, His Lordship was pleased to grant liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate Court to avail alternative remedy as available under Section 18 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the said order.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
Date: 18.11.2014 ES