04 August 2009
Supreme Court
Download

MUTHYAM AGAIAH GOUD Vs LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

Case number: C.A. No.-005073-005073 / 2009
Diary number: 14453 / 2005
Advocates: D. MAHESH BABU Vs P. PARMESWARAN


1

NON  REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5073 OF 2009             [Arising out of SLP© No.16682 of 2005]

Muthyam Agaiah Goud        … .Appellant

VERSUS

Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order  

dated  18th of  February,  2005  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  

Judicature,  Andhra  Pradesh  at  Hyderabad  in  Review  W.P.  

M.P.No.26782 of 2004 arising out of W.P.No.22429 of 1996.  

3. On 28th of  August,  2008,  while  allowing  the  application  for  

substitution to bring on record the heirs and legal representatives of  

the  deceased  appellant  No.2-Bandi  Veeraiah,  appellant  No.3-

Ananthula Agaiah, appellant No.4-Bhagaria Bhoomaiah, appellant  

No.6-Bollapalli  Ramaiah,  appellant  No.7-Mustala  Veeraiah,  a  

question was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that  

1

2

whether in fact the claimant-appellant had filed an application for  

reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.  For  

that purpose, by an order of the same date the original records were  

called for. The original records were placed before us by the learned  

counsel for the respondent. From a perusal of the record, it has now  

become  clear  that  an  application  under  Section  18  of  the  Land  

Acquisition Act, 1894, in fact, was filed by the appellant.  

3. Such being the position, we have no other alternative but to  

set aside the order impugned in this appeal and send the case back  

to the Reference Court to decide the said application under Section  

18 of the Land Acquisition Act in accordance with law after giving  

hearing to the parties and after passing a reasoned order within six  

months from the date of communication of this order to it.   

4. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is thus allowed to  

the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.        

……………………J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; …………………….J. August 04, 2009.  [R.M.Lodha]

2