POTTIPATI RAJESHWARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
LAWS(APH)-2017-9-46
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 13,2017

Pottipati Rajeshwari Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RATTAN SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY LATKA V. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
ALIGARH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. MEGH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. REENA SURI [REFERRED TO]
WORKING FRIENDS COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED V. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH NEEMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J. - (1.)These two Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order as they are filed by the same petitioner.
(2.)Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
(3.)The petitioner claims that she is the absolute owner of the land of an extent of Ac.0.05 cents situated in Survey No.843/B/1A, 1A of Chennur Village and Mandal as she purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 24.07.1985. She constructed an RCC building consisting of ground + 2 floors in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in the year 2007 and she has been residing in the said building. While so, on 09.10.2010 the first respondent issued a notification under subsection (1) of Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, for acquiring the land of an extent of Ac.1.20 cents for the purpose of widening of National Highway i.e., NH 18 from Kurnool to Kadapa. In the said notification, Ac.0.03 cents belonging to the Petitioner including the residential building which was constructed in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents was also shown. She objected to the acquisition of the total extent of Ac.0.03 cents stating that only an extent of Ac.0.1816 cents is required for acquisition and requested for conduct of resurvey of her land. However, an award was passed in Award No.70/2011-2012, dated 31.05.2012, fixing the compensation amount of Rs.8,84,054/- towards structure value and an amount of Rs.52,847/- towards land value for the total extent of Ac.0.03 cents. Since the value of the structure was not properly fixed, she filed an Arbitration Application before the fourth respondent, as the value of the structure was more than Rs.26.00 lakhs. It is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent, without considering the valuation report submitted by the Executive Engineer, R&B, vide his letter dated 25.02.2013 fixing the structural value as Rs.25,63,328/-, enhanced the compensation amount by Rs.4,87,117/- only in addition to the compensation already fixed by the fifth respondent by his proceedings dated 19.03.2015 without considering the request for resurvey of the land. She states that she submitted a representation to the fifth respondent on 30.04.2015 for resurvey of the land and also filed A.O.P.No.358 of 2015 before the learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa, challenging the proceedings of the fourth respondent. She filed I.A.No.427 of 2016 for appointment of Structural Engineer, Head of the Department, KSRM Engineering College, Kadapa, as Commissioner to assess the value of the structure as per the market value. The said application was allowed. She also filed I.A.No.3086 of 2015 for grant of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with her possession till resurvey and reassessment of the value of the building was made. But, the said application was dismissed by order dated 06.01.2016 by the learned Principal District Judge. Against the said order, she preferred C.M.A.No.79 of 2016, and the same was disposed of on 18.02.2016 by a Division Bench of this Court giving liberty to the petitioner to take necessary steps for assessment of structural value in pursuance of the orders in I.A.No.427 of 2016. Pursuant to the order in I.A.No.427 of 2016, the third respondent issued a letter on 17.03.2016 directing the Commissioner to conduct joint inspection on 19.03.2016. The Commissioner visited the premises, conducted inspection and took measurements of the structures. Though the structure was sought to be demolished, she resisted the same as no compensation was paid. She submitted a representation to the fifth respondent for conducting resurvey of the land, as only an extent of 0.1816 cents falls under acquisition and when the said representation was rejected by an endorsement dated 20.05.2015, W.P.No.12385 of 2016 was filed.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.