LAWS(APH)-1997-11-82

ANUKONDA MAHALAXMI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On November 04, 1997
ANUKONDA MAHALAXMI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT., SECRETARIAT HYD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petilion is filed seeking declaration that the action of the respondents in not paying the compensation amount of Rs.12,123.07ps. in O.P.No.18/84 to the extent of the share held by the petitioner in respect of the land acquired for public purpose as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential directions.

(2.) The petitioner, who is an octogenarian filed the writ petition stating that she is the owner of Ac. 1-30 cenls in S.No.56/2A of Arallakatta village, Karapa Mandal, East" Godavari District. The land was acquired and the award was passed on 9-4-1983 in Award No. 1/93. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the civil Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. A sum of Rs.24,265.00 was deposited before the learned subordinate Judge in O.P. No. 18/1984. The learned subordinate Judge by an order dated 9-11-1984 held that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.12,123.07ps. towards her share. It is the case of the petitioner that she did not withdraw the amount. Therefore, she filed an I.A. No. 110/1986 for releasing a cheque for a sum of Rs.12,123-07ps. and she came to know that only Rs.49,85ps. was available. On verification, it was found that some other person filed LA. No.3677 of 1985 and a cheque was issued for Rs.l2,123.07ps. It is her case that she never filed a cheque petilion earlier and that one practising advocate by name Sri S.N. Huda, forged her signature and obtained the cheque in collusion with the staff of the Court. The learned subordinate Judge referred the matter to the CBCID but no action was being taken. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that she has been deprived of Ihe legitimate amount by playing fraud. Therefore, she seeks appropriate direction,

(3.) Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 5th Respondent, which does not dispute the factum of deposit of the amount in the sub-Court.