Rayeesa Begum v. Dr. B. Janardhan Reddy
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 12 Aug 2016
- Bench
- C V NAGARJUNA REDDY
Provisions considered
Judgment
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr. Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, Standing counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: COMMON ORDER: These two contempt cases have been filed alleging wilful disobedience of orders dt.24.11.2015 in Writ Petition Nos.15515 and 15050 of 2014 respectively. While disposing of the writ petitions, by separate but identical orders, this Court inter alia directed as under: “In the light of the above dispute and the facts and circumstances as noted hereinbefore, I am of the opinion that it would be in the interests of justice that the officer designated by the Commissioner of respondent No.1 Corporation negotiates with the petitioner as well as respondent No.4. If a consensus is arrived at both on the quantum of compensation as well as the persons who are entitled to receive the same, respondent No.1 Corporation shall settle the claim for compensation.
If no such consensus is reached, respondent No.1 Corporation shall initiate the land acquisition proceedings for acquisition of the property in question. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained with respect to the possession of the property in question.” The grievance of the petitioner in these contempt cases is that the respondents have neither assessed the quantum of compensation nor initiated acquisition proceedings. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that as the compensation could not be settled in view of serious disputes among the parties, the Assistant City Planner, Circle – VI, vide his Letter No.TP/CC/HC/0004/2016/TPS-2(CIR-11), dt.22.7.2016, requested the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, to initiate land acquisition proceedings.
In support of this averment, the respondent has filed the said letter dt.22.7.2016 wherein it is stated as under: “With reference to the subject cited, it is to inform you that the GHMC has taken up Road Development for proposed 65 Mtr. From Gachibowli Flyover to Zonal Office (West Zone) wherein following two properties are being affected in this stretch. While enclosing the copy of the Form ‘1’, Appendix-I, II, III and sketch plans, you are requested to file the land acquisition in respect of the following (2) properties as per the new Land Acquisition Act, 2013, since parties are not coming forward to handover the road widening portion free of cost. S. No. Name Address
Sri P. Darshan Singh/ Smt. Rayeesa Begum Sri R. Kannaiah Lal/ Smt. Rayeesa Begum H. No.2-51/A, Sy. No.89, Gachibowli H. No.2-51/B, Sy. No.89, Gachibowli Area affected (in Sq. yards) 120.97
54.61” At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit of the respondent and the documentary evidence filed in support thereof, proving that the respondent has initiated proceedings for acquisition of the land, albeit with some delay, the orders passed in the above- mentioned writ petitions stood complied with. The contempt cases are accordingly dismissed. _______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12-08-2016
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 12 Aug 2016. The bench was C V NAGARJUNA REDDY.
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.