Uradi Narsimha Reddy, S/O Bal Lingam, v. .The State Of Telangana, Rep.By Principal Secretary,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.17596 of 2015 BETWEEN Uradi Narsimha Reddy and another.

... PETITIONERS AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition), Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. ALLADI RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (TG) The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Under a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') dated 19.02.2009 the house bearing No.3-235 (new)

corresponding to No.3-83 (old) at Rudravaram Village, Vemulawada Mandal, Karimnagar District is stated to have been acquired for submergence of Mid Manair Reservoir. Petitioner states that the third respondent is his brother and the said house is joint family property and as such, the petitioner has share in the said house. Apprehending that the third respondent would take away the compensation exclusively, the petitioner has filed a petition before the Land Acquisition Officer i.e. The Special Deputy Collector (LA Unit), Thimmapur Mandal, Karimanagar District, second respondent, on 16.04.2015 requesting him to stop payment of compensation to the third respondent on the ground that the petitioner has interest in the said house and as such, has a share in the compensation amount. Apprehending that the amount is likely to be disbursed to the third respondent, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on instructions, submits that at present the estimates are being prepared and is pending with the R&B Department and Forest Department and after the estimates are received, the second respondent will take up the passing of the award.

3. In that view of the matter, at the moment, the disbursement of the amount is not in the picture at all. Hence, the apprehension of the petitioner is misplaced. As and when the second respondent takes up the passing of the award, he shall take into consideration the petition filed by the petitioner dated 16.04.2015, referred to above and if there is any subsisting dispute between the parties, he shall take appropriate steps including seeking reference under Section 30 of the Act.

The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J June 26, 2015 DSK