Disposed

Kandula Sailaja, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Nov 2022WP/14600/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the respondents' action of marking petitioners' lands for road construction without complying with land acquisition procedures. The court disposed of the petition, directing respondents not to interfere with possession until due process was followed.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents not to interfere with petitioners' possession and enjoyment of subject lands without following due process under the RFR&RA, 2013.

Kandula Sailaja, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.14600 of 2015

¶2

ORDER

¶3

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶4

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“….to issue Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in taking measurements and marking the same with flags in the petitioners lands in Survey Nos.330/1 to 330/4 an extent of 428.95, 428.37 and 531.11 of Pidimgoyyi Panchayat, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District for the purpose of laying 100 feet road as illegal, arbitrary and violation of 14 and 21 of Art 300A of Constitution of India and also contrary to the land Acquisition proceedings and consequently direct the respondents not to lay any road through the petitioners lands in Survey Nos. 330/1 to 330/4 an extent of 428.95, 429.37 and 531.11 of Pidimgoyyi Panchayat, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, without following the land acquisition proceedings in accordance with The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013 …”

¶6

When the matter came up for admission, this Court passed an Interim Order dated 14.05.2015, which is as follows:

¶7

„In the meanwhile, Status quo as on today to be maintained by the parties‟.

¶8

In pursuance of the Interim Orders passed by this Court on 14.05.2015, it appears that the possession lies with

¶9

¶10

the petitioners and on the other hand, no Land Acquisition Proceedings have been initiated thereafter.

¶11

In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject lands, without following due process as contemplated under law.

¶12

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶14

______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶15

Date : 18.11.2022 AVTP

¶16

¶17

166

¶18

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.14600 of 2015

¶20

Date : 18.11.2022

¶21

AVTP

¶22

Kandula Sailaja, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandula Sailaja, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dodda Seetamma, W/o. Dodda Ramalinga Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Venkatarajesh Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Sri Udaya Bhanu Associates Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Nandyala Subbamma, Ysr Dist Vs Prl Secy, Roads and Buildings, Hyd and 3 Ot

Danikela Uttamma Vs the State of Ap., Revenue Dept and 4 Others

Dr. C.s. Kumar S/o. Chinnayya, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary