Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.DILIP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISIT ION T he Court made t he following : T HE HON'BLE MR JUST ICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PET IT ION NO : 23165 of 2008
ORDER:
The petitioner states that he is the owner of lands in Survey Nos.242, 244, 249, 261 and 262 of Kythanpally Village, Damaragidda Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. According to him, a cart track used to pass through his lands and about 20 years ago, the respondents have widened the cart track and laid a B.T. road, in the process, utilizing an extent of Ac.5.00 of his land. He contends that neither any compensation was paid nor any proceedings were initiated in respect the said land. Stating that his repeated representations did not yield any results, he filed this writ petition, with a prayer to direct the respondents to pay compensation for Ac.5.00 of land. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are under obligation to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act or to pay compensation, once they have utilized the land of the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, on the other hand, submits that the claim of the petitioner is totally untenable in law and on facts.
He further submits that there is nothing on record to disclose that the land of the petitioner was utilized in laying the road and at any rate, the claim made at this belated stage cannot be accepted. The petitioner filed the copy of the pattadar pass book, which discloses that he had lands in various survey numbers, including those referred to above. However, there is nothing on record to disclose that the land of the petitioner was utilised in widening of the road. The road is said to have been laid about 20 years ago. The first response form the petitioner is in the form of a notice, issued through his Advocate, as recently as in 2006. The respondents cannot be expected to keep the records in relation to the road so longer. Further, it is not as if the petitioner alone was the owner of the land, through out the length of the road. Large number of persons have owned lands on either side of the road.
There is not even an allegation that any such owner was paid compensation. The petitioner cannot be singled out in this regard. At any rate, a stale claim, which is more than 20 years old, cannot be entertained. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 23.10.2008 JSU To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} // TRUE COPY // ..... REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER T HE HON'BLE MR JUST ICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PET IT ION NO : 23165 of 2008 Date: 23.10.2008 JSU
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.