Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Muchika Bullayamma vs Polavaram Project Authority . on 5 July, 2016
Bench: Chief Justice, D.Y. Chandrachud
1
ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.1 SECTION XIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)...... of 2016
CC No(s). 10650/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/10/2015
in PIL No. 140/2015 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Hyderabad For The State Of Telangana And The State Of Andhra
Pradesh)
MUCHIKA BULLAYAMMA AND ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
POLAVARAM PROJECT AUTHORITY AND ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln. (s) for permission to file SLP and office report)
Date : 05/07/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Subod Markandeya,Sr.Adv.
Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv.
Mr. K. Sravan Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Raul Agarwal,Adv.
Mr. Sisir Pinaki,Adv.
Mr. T. Vijay Bhaskar Reddy,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard.
Permission to file the special leave petition is granted. Delay condoned.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we see Signature Not Verified no reason to interfere with the impugned order especially when Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2016.07.06 17:05:47 IST Reason: the impugned order declines to interfere with the acquisition proceedings or examine the question of rehabilitation and/or 2 payment of compensation at the market rate to the land-owners at the instance of a public activists. That is particularly so when the High Court has observed that the land-owners have no grievance against the completed transaction of acquisition proceedings.
Learned counsel for the petitioners however submits that the findings recorded by the High Court may prevent the petitioners, who are aggrieved of the acquisition proceedings, from approaching the High Court.
We make it clear that no observation made by the High Court in regard to the payment of compensation or dispossession of the land-owners from the land acquired, shall prejudice the case of the petitioners before the High Court in any proceedings that the petitioners may choose to institute.
With the above observations, the special leave petition is dismissed.
(MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER