HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITIION No. 18414 OF 2008 DATED 10th November, 2014.
BETWEEN Saleemuddin Ahmed ….Petitioner And The District Collector, Warangal, Warangal District and ors …Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITIION No. 18414 OF 2008.
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3.
The petitioner states that he is the owner of the land admeasuring 1000 square yards situated in Sy.Nos.761 and 762 of Warangal city, abutting 100 feet main road leading from Warangal Railway Station to Kazipet. He constructed a shed in the said property and the same was assessed to tax and the Municipality allocated H.No.15-2-28 to it. While so, the second respondent proposed to widen the road in the year 1987 and in that process, they have taken possession of an extent of 165 square yards of the land along with shed from the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have taken possession of the said piece of land without following the due procedure laid down under the Land Acquisition Act.
The second respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner sold away the land in Sy.Nos.761 and 762 abutting to 100 feet wide main road to one Smt. M. Annapurna through registered sale deed dated 6.6.2002 and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to payment of any compensation. It is further stated that they have not acquired the land of the petitioner for road widening and therefore payment of compensation to him does not arise.
From the material papers filed along with the Writ Petition, it appears that the second respondent issued notice on 18.11.1982 informing the petitioner for leaving a portion of the land for road widening purpose. The petitioner submitted a representation on 01.04.1991 stating that his land was acquired for formation of 100 feet road at Mulug road during 1982-83. He also stated that he was asked to submit a copy of the permission letter accorded by the Municipality along with plan for construction of shed. He sought for payment of compensation. After the said representation, he filed the present Writ petition in the year 2008. In view of the enormous delay in filing the Writ petition, when the learned Counsel for the petitioner is asked to explain the reasons for delay, he stated that the petitioner is submitting representations for payment of compensation. It is well settled that submission of representations will not save the delay. In view of the lapses on the part of the petitioner in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing discussion and in the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 10th November, 2014. Msnrx