Govt. Of A.P. And Another vs Mohd. Moinuddin Hussan And Others on 17 July, 1998
13. The same view was taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Government of A.P. v. Venkataiah, 1996 (2) ALT 352.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.55 seconds)Documents citing
Government Of A.P., Rep. By Its ... vs Naganaboina Venkataiah And Ors. on 26 April, 1996
Jaldu Raja Visala Subba Rao And Ors. vs District Collector (La) And Ors. on 3 April, 1997
In Government of A.P. v. N. Venkataiah, , a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao) was a member, has held that when the claimants are not satisfied with the amount of compensation, solatium and additional amount awarded, they have to approach Civil Court seeking reference Under Section 18 and not High Court by filing writ petition. The general proposition is that whenever the claimants are not satisfied with the award of compensation, market value, solatium, interest and additional amount, they have to seek a reference Under Section 18 of the Act. Once they seek a reference, the same will be decided by the Civil Court. After seeking a reference, they cannot come to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of writ petition and claim amounts. Therefore, we are not able to agree with the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant.
Land Acquisition Officer (Special ... vs Pittala Saranga Pani And Ors. on 27 January, 1998
Aggrieved by the said orders of this Court, the present appeals have been filed and obtained stay. Before granting stay, the land acquisition officer had passed supplementary award in compliance with the order of the learned single Judge. It is submitted that the Government got the cheques ready for the said amounts and they are yet to be delivered to the claimants. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that the learned single Judge erred in holding that the claimants are entitled for statutory benefits as any benefits have to be decided in O.Ps. which are still pending but not in the Writ Petitions and as such the impugned order is quite incorrect. To support his contention, he placed reliance on the decisions reported in Govt. of A.P. v. N. Venkataiah 1996 (3) ALT 352 and J.R.V. Subba Rao v. Dist. Collector 1997 (3) ALT 34. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the claimants are entitled for statutory benefits as conferred under Sections 23 and 28 of the Act. Since the Land Acquisition Officer had ignored to consider the same the claimants were right in approaching this Court and the learned Single Judge rightly directed the Land. Acquisition Officer to pass the supplementary Award. The learned Counsel for the claimants further submits that pendency of reference has nothing to do with the claimants' claim and thus urged to dismiss the appeals.
1