Korsa Venkata Narsamma v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.44216 OF 2018 DATED :06.12.2018 Between :

Korsa Venkata Narsamma W/o.Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 55 yrs, ST (Koya), Housewife, R/o.D.No.4-49, Main Road, T.Gangannagudem Village, Mulagalampalli Post, Zeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.

..

Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary (Revenue Department), Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh & others.

.. Respondents This court made the following :

- 2 - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.44216 OF 2018 ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3. 2.

Petitioner claims to be the resident of T.Gangannagudem Village Hamlet and claims that she is cultivating the land to an extent of Ac.2-25 cents which was the ancestral property. According to petitioner, her father was blessed with two daughters and a son. The said land is acquired as part of Polavaram Project and an amount of Rs.64,50,000/- was determined. The grievance of the petitioner is that surputiously scrupulously her sister and brother claimed themselves as successors to the property and the entire compensation amount is deposited in their accounts. Petitioner claims to have issued a legal notice to her brother and sister and also made a representation on 03.10.2018 requesting the Land Acquisition Officer to withdraw the amount credited to the account of her sister and brother and they should not be allowed to withdraw. 3.

No material is placed on record to show that petitioner's name is reflected in the revenue records and that Award was passed in her name but when it comes to disbursement of compensation the same was credited to her sister and brother, depriving compensation to her.

4.

As can be seen from the representation itself, the amount was already credited to the account of two persons named by the petitioner. Once compensation is already disbursed, it is no

- 3 - more open for the Land Acquisition Officer to withdraw the amount. Furthermore, no material is placed on record to show that there was lapse on the part of Land Acquisition Officer in ignoring the name of petitioner, and considering the brother and sister of petitioner. Thus, the relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.

5.

Having regard to the above discussion, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this order does not come in the way of petitioner prosecuting her grievance vis-à-vis her brother and sister by working out her remedies as available in law. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 6th December, 2018 Rds