Lakshmamma vs The Divisional Railway Manager

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners'' challenge in these writ petitions is two fold, firstly that the revenue entries in their favour have been illegally deleted and secondly that the land belonging to the petitioners having been acquired, they have not been paid any compensation.

The land was notified in the name of the great grandfather of the petitioners. In this regard, it is pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that insofar as the challenge to illegal revenue entries made in respect of the land in question, the petitioners'' remedy lies before the Revenue Authorities and insofar as the compensation claimed by the petitioners is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for the BDA would point out that the compensation amount in respect of the land acquired, has been deposited before the Court in which reference lies and hence if the petitioners, according to the BDA, who are not entitled to compensation should lay a claim to the same, it is for them to establish the claim before the Competent Court and therefore the present petitions are infructuous and are to be dismissed.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners seek permission to amend the petitions to challenge the acquisition proceedings.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, would submit that the petitions may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Revenue Authorities insofar as the revenue entries are concerned, subject to the law of limitation, if any. Since the petitioners'' title is disputed, it is for the petitioners to establish their title in laying claim to compensation before the Competent Court. With those observations, the petitions stand disposed of.