Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Telangana
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

Kandimalla Surekha vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others

High Court Of Telangana|25 August, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.22327 OF 2014 DATE: 25.08.2014 Between :
Kandimalla Surekha, W/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged 52 years, r/o.Chowtapalem village, Kanupuru-II, Venkatachalam Mandal, SPSR Nellore district.
…. Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Principal Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
…. Respondents This Court made the following :
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.22327 OF 2014 ORDER:
The case of the petitioner is that the land to an extent of Ac.0.97 cents in Sy.No.559 of Chavatapalem village, Venkatachalam Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, was acquired for the purpose of laying railway line between Obulapuram and Krishnapatnam. Without putting the petitioner on notice and giving due opportunity, land acquisition proceedings were concluded and the land acquisition authorities determined the compensation payable to the petitioner as Rs.26,49,838/-. On 20.07.2014, in the presence of Minister of Union Government, cheques were distributed. No opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to protest on the compensation determined. However, when the cheque was presented in the Bank, the cheque was returned as ‘referred to drawer’ and, therefore, no amount was paid. Since no opportunity was given, the right of the petitioner to raise an objection regarding enhancement of compensation as per Section 64(1) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) is deprived and hence this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was forced to receive the cheque on 20.07.2014 without giving opportunity to the petitioner to raise an objection on the quantum of compensation determined. He submits that since the compensation was paid after 01.01.2014, the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 would apply. According to second proviso to Section 77 of the Act 30 of 2013, unless protest is lodged while receiving compensation determined, the person is not entitled to make an application under Section 64(1) of the Act, 30 of 2013 for enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel therefore submits that illegally the right of the petitioner to raise an application for enhancement of compensation is deprived.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader produced written instructions. The written instructions disclose that the cheque presented by the petitioner was not honoured on the ground that the petitioner has not signed on C & CC forms as required by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the issue is kept pending and petitioner was also issued notice dated 15.07.2014 calling upon her to sign on C & CC forms.
4. As the written instructions would disclose that the issue of payment of compensation is not concluded, it cannot be said that petitioner is not entitled to raise objection on compensation determined. In the facts of this case, liberty is given to the petitioner to visit the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore on any working day and sign on C & CC forms as required by the Revenue Divisional Officer. While signing the C & CC forms, the petitioner is also entitled to register a protest on the amount of compensation received by her. As and when the petitioner signs C & CC forms, petitioner be permitted to present the cheque issued to her and she is also entitled to file an application for enhancement of compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since Section 64(1) of the Act 30/2013 prescribes the time limit of 30 days, petitioner has, in fact, filed an application seeking enhancement of compensation on 11.08.2014. Subject to the petitioner signing C & CC forms and formally lodging a protest application on the amount of compensation determined, the application filed by the petitioner on 11.8.2014 under Section 64(1) shall be considered on its merits.
6. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 25.08.2014 kkm HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.22327 OF 2014 DATE: 25.08.2014 kkm
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Kandimalla Surekha vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others

Court

High Court Of Telangana

JudgmentDate
25 August, 2014
Judges
  • P Naveen Rao