High CourtsDivision Bench(2000) 03 AP CK 0105

Ausala Gangadhar and Others vs G. Ganapathi Rao, Special Dy. Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Land Acquisition-cum-LOC Unit, Sri Ram Sagar Project

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 21 March 2000 · Citation: (2000) 4 ALT 16

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Ananda Reddy, J · N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J
CASE NUMBER
Contempt Case No. 161 of 2000

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 311 words

N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.—This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of the order passed by this Court in A.S. No. 2961/19%, dated 23-2-1999.

2.

Sri. Rajeeva Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the State Government acquired the lands of the petitioners long back it has not chosen to pay the compensation to them till now.

3.

However, Smt J. Vijayalakshmi submits on behalf of the learned Advocate General that if some more time is granted the order of this Court will be complied with.

4.

It is most unfortunate to find that the State Government has not paid any compensation to the petitioners in spite of acquiring their lands long back and dispossessed them from eking out their livelihood. Time and again it is said that no person can be dispossessed from his land without paying the amount of compensation. But this attitude of the Government in not paying the compensation amount to the petitioners runs contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Further, in spite of time being granted to the Government, it failed to comply with the order of this Court.

5.

In view of the undertaking given by the State Government, this Court is inclined to grant a further time of six weeks for complying with the order of this Court. Accordingly six weeks time is granted to the State Government for complying with the order of this Court.

6.

Recording the above submission made on behalf of the learned Advocate General, the proceedings are dropped. The Contempt Case is closed.

7.

However, in spite of such undertaking given by the State, if the order complained of is not complied with within the time stipulated, Sri. Rajeeva Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners will be at liberty to seek revival of the present Contempt Case.

8.

With the above observations, the present Contempt Case is closed.