SADASHIVA RAO Vs. SECRETARY TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The essential grievance of the Petitioners is against the award notice dtd. 20/2/2014 issued under Sec. 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the land in question. Learned Counsel Sri. S.V.Prakash, having argued the matter vociferously draws attention of the Court to the Judgment dtd. 16/9/2011 passed by a Co-ordinate judgment of this Court in the earlier round of litigation i.e., in W.P.Nos.28962- 28985/2009 (LA-RES), wherein specific observations have been made that the land value has to be ascertained as it obtained as on the date of the judgment and therefore, the award notice not being consistent with this, is liable to be voided.

(2.) Learned AGA appearing for the Official Respondents, opposes the petition contending that the writ remedy is not the proper remedy in matters like this; since what is challenged is only the assessment of the compensation in terms of the award, it is open to the Petitioners to invoke referential jurisdiction under Sec. 18 of the 1894 Act and therefore, they be relegated to the said remedy. He hastens to add that in determining the market value of the property in question, the trial has to take place in terms of the reference as held by the Apex Court and that exercise ordinarily is not undertaken in writ jurisdiction. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is broadly in agreement with the submission of learned AGA and therefore, declines indulgence reserving liberty to the Petitioners to approach the Reference Court as observed above.