Botchu Anjamma, W./o. Venkateswara Rao v. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.PIT CHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE T he Court made t he following : T HE HON'BLE MR JUST ICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
ORDER:
WRIT PET IT ION NO : 12837 of 2008 The petitioner claims to be the owner of a plot, admeasuring 152 square yards, in Survey No.52 of Rajupalem Village, Ulavapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. She states that the plot abuts National Highway No.5 and in the recent past, it was utilized in widening of the National Highway. It is also stated that a sum of Rs.2,753/- was paid as compensation and though a legal notice, dated 22.10.2007 was got issued for enhancement of the compensation, no steps have been taken thereon. The petitioner seeks directions in this regard. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The petitioner admits that a sum of Rs.2,753/- was paid as compensation. However, she is not clear as to whether the said amount was paid under an award and if so, the provision of law, under which the award was passed. From a perusal of the reply, dated 14.12.2007, issued by the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), National Highway No.5, Ongole, it is evident that a suggestion was given to the petitioner to seek for arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. In the representation, dated
Operative part
22.10.2007, made by the petitioner, no reference, either to the notifications or the award, is made. In this scenario, this Court finds it difficult to grant any specific relief to the petitioner. If the petitioner is so advised, she has to know the relevant notifications, under which the land was acquired, and take further steps. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to ascertain the particulars of the notifications issued in relation to her land and thereafter, to pursue her remedies before the concerned authority. There shall be no order as to costs. Not e: Issue C.C. in one week. (B/o) JSU _________ 16.10.2008 // TRUE COPY // ..... REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} T HE HON'BLE MR JUST ICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PET IT ION NO : 12837 of 2008 Date: 16.10.2008 JSU
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Land Acquisition Act.
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.