SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(AP) 708

V.V.S.RAO
Koppula Narasiah – Appellant
Versus
Government Of A. P. , Irrigation and CAD Dept. – Respondent


V. V. S. RAO, J.

( 1 ) ALL these writ petitions involve same question of law and the facts are also the same. It is, therefore, convenient to dispose all of them by this common order. Accordingly, common order shall dispose of all these ten writ petitions. The facts are in a very narrow compass and indeed, but for giving a clarification wherever necessary, the respondents have not disputed the facts.

( 2 ) THE necessary facts are as follows. The land owned by the petitioners was acquired under the provisions of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 ( the Act for brevity) as amended by the Nagarjunasagar Project (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1960. Awards were duly passed and the amount was disbursed to the owners. In some cases, the owners sought reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and after the award of the Civil Court, enhanced compensation was also paid. In all the cases, awards were passed long ago, that is to say, about 20-25 years ago. The particulars are as follows:

Si. No

W. P. No.

Particulars of the land

Date of Award


1.

4693 of 1994

Ac. 1. 13 1/4 gts. in Sy. No. 275, Kanapuram Haveli

4-3-1969


2.

18156 of 1994

Ac. 0. 20 gts. in Sy. No. 111/2 (111/a), Somavaram

31







































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top