Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
- Chinnappa Reddy vs The State of A.P.
BENCH – HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P. No. 38576 of 2016
DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 11 MAY 2023
FACTS
The case of the petitioners is that they were owners of Ac.16.12 of land in of Nossam Village, Kurnool District. These lands were made the subject matter of land acquisition, for the purpose of Srisailam Right Bank Canal, by way of a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 05.02.2009. As no further steps were being taken, the petitioners had moved for a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to complete the acquisition proceedings and to pass an award. This writ petition was allowed on 20.12.2011 with a direction to the acquisition officer to pass an award within a period of three months. In pursuance of this direction, the Land Acquisition Officer had passed orders on 9.03.2012 rejecting the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the said land is Government land and that the petitioners have no right or title over the property.
The petitioners again moved to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of a direction to the acquisition officer to pass an appropriate award. This writ petition was disposed of on 30.01.2013 with a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to pass an award within three months again.
The petitioners have now approached this Court by way of the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the compensation for the petitioner should have been fixed in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 and not in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to fix compensation and pay the same to the petitioners in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
JUDGEMENT
In the present case, there is no dispute that possession of the land has been taken. Further, the award, as can be seen from the dates set out above, has been passed on 19.11.2013, within 5 years of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 coming into force on 01.01.2014. In the circumstances, the provisions of Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 would not come to the aid of the petitioners. Accordingly, this writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
