Disposed

Mohamed Abdul Malik v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Mar 2023WP/1145/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court addressed a writ petition challenging inaction regarding land acquisition for canal construction. Relying on departmental instructions that no work was done and representations were disposed of, the court directed authorities not to interfere with petitioners' property without following due process of law before disposing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction not to interfere with petitioners' property possession without following due process of law.

Mohamed Abdul Malik Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.1145 of 2023

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“…to issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 to 4 not disposing their representations submitted on 10.01.2023 till today is illegal, arbitrary, against law and violation of Articles 21, 300-A of the Constitution of India and also to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to dispose of their representations submitted on 10.01.2023 and also to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to follow due procedure of law for acquiring the petition schedule property for the purpose of digging and constructing a canal in the petition schedule property and pay the suitable compensation amount to the petitioners for the extent of land acquired by the respondents 2 to 4 for digging and for constructing the canal and to pass….”

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the

¶7

contents as stated in the writ petition.

¶8

On 19.01.2023, this Court passed the following

¶9

interim order:

¶10

‘The respondents are hereby directed to maintain status quo as on today with regard to the subject property in T.S.No.6, Door No.5,

¶11

¶12

Block No.1, F.No.1-1-44, Municipal Assessment No.S1/469/ laying Northern row to the cantonment, Bowdara Road, Vizianagaram SubRegistration, for a period of eight (08) weeks.”

¶13

At the time of hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings has produced a copy of instructions of the 4^th respondent, wherein it is stated that, the departmental officials have visited the site only to verify the geomatrics of the site and no work was done and further stated that if any land is required by the Department, they will follow due process of law and the representations made by the petitioners were also disposed of by the respondents vide Lr.No.1145/2023/VB Road/HC/2015 dated 20.01.2023.

¶14

Recording the above submissions made by the learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings, without going into merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners’ properties situated in T.S.No.5, Block No.1, Vizianagaram, without following due process of law.

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶18

_______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶19

Date : 20.03.2023 KGR/KBS

¶20

¶21

242

¶22

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.1145 of 2023

¶24

Date : 20.03.2023

¶25

KGR/KBS

Mohamed Abdul Malik v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Abdul Malik 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

Nagothi Siva Kumari, Vs The Asst. General Manager

Chintham /Chintala Satish Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Y. Srinivasulu, Vs The Managing Director

Tadepalli Tataji Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Steel Exchange India Limited, Vs The Special Chief Secretary

M/S.Sri Muralikrishna Constructions Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh