MEKA PEDDA ANKAIAH vs SRI G.SAI PRASAD
Party Details
- MEKA PEDDA ANKAIAH
- Karralagunta Chinnaiah
- Karralakunta Sankaraiah
- Meka Venkataiah
- Manda Ankamma
- Barri Ankamma
- Barri Tirupalu
- Barri Babaiah
- Aduru Nagabhushanam
- Adura Nageswara Rao
- Karralakunta Chinna Eswaraiah
- Karralakunta Eswaraiah
- Karralakunta Ramanaiah
- Varikuti Venkataiah
- Meka Ramaiah
- Meka Sivaiah
- Meka Pedda Ankaiah
- Meka Chinna Ankaiah
- Meka Krishnaiah
- Meka Chinna Ankaiah
- Meka Narasamma
- Meka Polamma
- Meka Koteswaraiah
- Meka Chinnamma
- Meka Jayaramaiah
- Meka Chinna Venkataiah
- Meka Achamma
- Meka Chinna Ankaiah
- Meka Penchalaiah
- Meka Lakshmamma
- Ari Ramamma
- Ari Penchalaiah
- SRI G SAI PRASAD
- Sri Sai Prasad
- Sri K V N Chakradhar babu
- Sri Moulali
- Sri Shyam Sunder Raju
- Sri Arun Kumar Jain
Case Summary
MEKA PEDDA ANKAIAH and Karralagunta Chinnaiah filed Case No. CC 121/2023 in the High Court Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 Jan 2023 against SRI G SAI PRASAD and Sri Sai Prasad. The case has had one hearing so far. The case is currently pending. 7 orders have been issued in this matter.
Hearing History (1)
- 24APR 2023Next Hearing
Judge: N/A
Orders (7)
- 8AUG 2023judgementView Order ↗
Order No: 7
- 4JUL 2023orderView Order ↗
Order No: 6
- 19JUN 2023orderView Order ↗
Order No: 5
Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.
RAGHUNANDAN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.121 of 2023 ORDER: The petitioners being aggrieved by the non- payment of adequate compensation for acquisition of their lands had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.24464 of 2020, which came to be disposed of on 23.08.2022 with a direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners after determining the market value under Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, after deducting the ex-gratia amount, which has already been paid to the petitioners.
2.
Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in complying with the directions of this Court, the petitioners have filed the present Contempt Case.
3.
During the pendency of the Contempt Case, the 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the market value has been determined at Rs.250/- Sq. yard and compensation, on the basis of the said market value has been paid to the petitioners by depositing the same into their bank accounts.
2 4.
Sri.
V.
Rajanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the market value in the area is Rs.900/- per Square Yard.
However, the respondents have fixed the market value at Rs.250/- per Sq. yard with a malafide intention and the petitioners have refused to accept the compensation paid out into their bank accounts.
5.
The question of whether the market value of the land should be fixed at Rs.250/- per Sq. yard or Rs.900/- per Sq. yard is a matter of which would have to be determined by the Appellate Authority and the same cannot be looked into by this Court in the Contempt Proceedings.
6.
Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed leaving it open to the petitioners to exercise their rights for payment of compensation claimed by them according to the existing market value.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. nd closed. ____________________________ R.
RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 08.08.2023 KPV 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.
RAGHUNANDAN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.121 of 2023 08.08.2023 KPV