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

1996 Supreme(AP) 78

NEELAM SANJIVA REDDY, V.RAJAGOPALA REDDY, K.M.AGARWAL
State Of A. P. rep. By Collector, Vizianagaram – Appellant
Versus
P. Peda Chinnayya – Respondent


K. M. AGARWAL, J.

( 1 ) IN all these various types of cases, such as Appeal Suits, Letters Patent appeals and Writ Petitions etc. , the nature of the dispute is common and is covered by the common question referred to the Full Bench by a Division bench of this Court in its order of reference, which is as follows:- "in all these cases the common question of law that arises for consideration is: Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation under Land Acquisition Act when the lands are resumed by the Govt. , particularly when the lands resumed are assigned lands? In this regard there are conflicting views of Division Benches. "in W. P. Nos. 6032 and 6727 of 1988 a Division Bench of this Court consisting of V. Sivaraman Nair, J. and D. Reddeppa Reddi, J. held that the claimants are entitled to compensation only on compassionate grounds as per Govt. Orders but not under the Land Acquisition Act. In W. A. No. 631/93 another Division Bench consisting of the Hon. the chief Justice and Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri, J. , held that the claimants are entitled for compensation under Govt. Orders and the provisions of land Acquisition Act have no application. In W. P. No. 1048 of 92 disposed of








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