ZEENATH BANU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the owner of the land, has come forward to file this writ petition forbearing the respondents from demolishing or acquiring it as no compensation has been paid.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though compensation has been paid in so far as the Survey Nos.521/94B1, 521/46A1, 521/110B1, no such compensation has been paid for Survey No.521/47B3. In such view of the matter, the writ petition will have allowed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would submit that the petitioner has made a statement on 18.05.2012 stating that he has received the compensation for the land acquired. Thereafter, an award was passed on 31.10.2012, followed by the possession taken as per the certificate dated 27.02.2013. Therefore, it is only an afterthought. Though the petitioner has received the compensation, she has obtained an interim order covering the entire land acquired which is inclusive of the building. The building comes up in two Survey Numbers and thus the confusion. The petitioner has subsequently filed another writ petition for the very same relief in W.P.No.22492 of 2016, which has been dismissed as withdrawn without liberty and therefore the principle of estoppel and res judicata would apply.