The court held that when a claimant has submitted representations regarding the disbursement of land acquisition compensation, the concerned authority must pass appropriate orders on such applications after providing a fair hearing to all parties involved.

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

R11 IS BROUGHT ON RECORDAS LR OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.8 AS PER COURT ORDER DT.09.09.2025 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2025.

The Court made the following order:

Heard Sri K.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Chandra Shekar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri T.V.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7 and Sri Sk. Jahangeer Basha, learned counsel appearing for Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 to 10.

2. The instant writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in seeking to disburse the compensation amount in respect of the lands to an extent of Ac.1.78 cents in R.S.No.30/3, Ac.4.31 cents in R.S.No.50/2 and Ac.1.65 cents in R.S.No.71/1, situated at Toyyeru Village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District, without considering the applications dated 07.09.2019 and 12.09.2019 submitted by the petitioner.

3. It is contended that the petitioner is the legal heir of respondent No.8. In a partition suit filed by respondent No.8 along with his sisters for partition, a decree was passed holding that the petitioner’s father was entitled to 1/6th share in the suit schedule property. Subsequently, the entire suit schedule property was acquired for the Polavaram Irrigation Project and the compensation payable to the landowners was determined and at the stage of disbursement of compensation, the instant writ petition is filed.

4. The petitioner states that she has made representations dated 07.09.2019 and 12.09.2019 to respondent Nos.2 to 4, requesting payment of compensation, as the unofficial respondents herein are depriving her of her lawful share in the subject properties. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the respondents, without passing any orders on the said application, were proposing to disburse the compensation amount. The petitioner had approached this Court seeking a direction to the appropriate authority.

5. Sri T.V.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.6 argues that the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable, as, any entitlement to a share the same would be from out of the share allotted to her late father. The petitioner, without any manner of right, is claiming a share in the share of the unofficial respondents herein and is stalling the entire process of disbursement of compensation payable to the unofficial respondents herein. If she has any right in respect of the subject property, the same would be only out of the share of her father, and she cannot claim any share in the shares allotted to the unofficial respondent herein. It is contended that she can have no grievance beyond her share in the father’s 1/6th share in the suit schedule property and cannot claim the compensation payable to the unofficial respondents.

6. Having regard to the contentions advanced, as the application filed by the petitioner is pending for consideration before the 3rd respondent, without going into the merits of the issue involved, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the applications dated 07.09.2019 and 12.09.2019 submitted by the petitioner, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondents.

7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications p