Partly allowed

Vanacharla Venkata Krishna Rao v. Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Aug 2024WA/1001/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench allowed a writ appeal filed by the NHAI to modify an impugned order, restricting compensation payment to land notified under Section 3D of the National Highways Act rather than the earlier Section 3A notification. The opposite writ appeal challenging this as a fresh acquisition process was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The order directing compensation based on Section 3A was modified to direct payment based on Section 3D notification. The opposite writ appeal was dismissed with costs to the impugned party.

Vanacharla Venkata Krishna Rao Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIQH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR k.

¶3

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1001 OF 2023 AND 135 OF 2024

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1001 OF 2023

¶9

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order dt. 21.09.2023 in WP No. 34565 of 2022:, on the file of the High Court. Between;

¶10

Vanacharla Venkata Krishna Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana Murthy, aged 55 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. D. No. 2-227, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru District.

¶11

Ramayanam Yesu Babu, S/o. Giyanna, aged 39 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. D. No. 2-235, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru District.

¶12

Karanam Prakasa Rao, S/o. Appa Rao, aged 68 years, Occ; Cultivation, R/o. D. No. 9-7, Kaikaram Village,’ Unguturu Mandal, Eluru District.

¶13

Sanam Venugopala Rao, S/o. Surya Bhaskara Rao, aged 54 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. H. No. 1-173, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru District.

¶14

agedPuppala65 Madhusudanayears, Occ; Cultivation,Rao, S/o. R/o.KanakaD. No.Durga11-12,Rao,’ Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal, Elum District.

¶15

Vanacharla Ramakrishna Prasad, S/o. Lakshmana Mohana Rao, aged 50 years, Occ : Cultivation, R/o. D. No. 9-15, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru District.

¶16

Piridi Venkata Lakshmi Narayana, S/o. Papayya aged 80 years, R/o. D. No. 2-85, Kaikaram Villa’ge, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru District.

¶17

Pindi Babu Venkata Samba Siva Prasad, S/o. Gavaracharyulu, aged 56 years, Occ; Teacher R/o. D. No. 2-175, Kaikaram Village, Ungutum Mandal, Eluru District.

¶18

Chintalapati Pardhasaradha Raj u, S/o. Narayana Raju, aged 53 years, Ucc; Cultivation, R/o. D. No. 2-221, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal, Elum District.

¶19

: 2 ;

¶20

Gunnu Venkata Rao, S/o. Appanna, aged 70 years, Occ; Cultivation, R/o. D. No. 2-69, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru District.

¶21

Peddireddy Appala Raju, S/o. Ramulu, aged 56 years, Occ; Cultivation, R/o. D. No. 2-223, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru District.

¶22

Guttikonda Ramakrishna, S/o. Appa Rao, aged 56 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. D. No. 2-34, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru District.

¶23

Masavarapu Naga Venkata Srinivasa Rao, S/o; Late Nagaraju, aged dS.years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. D. No. 5-2, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru District.

¶24

Sanam Siva Rama Raju, S/o. Late Venkateswara Rao, aged 25 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. D. No. 1-174, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru District.

¶25

Sanam Naga Venkata Swamy Ratna Kumar, S/o. Late Satya Murthy, aged 44 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. H. No. 1-172, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru District.

¶26

Sanam Dhanalakshmi, W/o. Late Venkata Nageswara Rao, aged 60 years. Housewife, R/o. D. No. 1-171, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru District.

¶27

Kona Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged 50 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. D. No. 5-59, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru District.

¶28

Puppala Mastan Rao, S/o. Kanaka Durga Rao, aged 78 years, Occ: Bu.siness. R/o. D, No, 4-16, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal, Elura District.

¶29

Yannamreddy Mani Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, aged 45 years, Occ: Bsiness, R/o. D. No. 2-94/1, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal, Elum District.

¶30

: 3 •

¶31

Metta Murali, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged 61 years,.. Occ: Business, R/o. D. No. 2-93, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru District. Appellants/ Petitioners

¶32

And

¶33

Union of India Rep. by its Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Road, Transport and Plighways, New Delhi.

¶34

Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶35

Project Director, National Plighways of Authority of India, Rajahmundry.

¶36

National Highways Authority of India, O/o. Door No. 41-29-45/A, Near Kodanda Ramalayam, Chalasani Nagar, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna^District.

¶37

Competent Authority and Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, Eluru District, Erstwhile West Godavari District. Respondents/ Respondents

¶38

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶39

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Notification dt.^18.04.2018 in SO No. 1701(E) issued by the respondents 1 and 2 under Section 3 (A) (1) of National Highways Act, 1956 further notification dt.^07.12.2018 in SO No. 6078 (E) issued under Section 3 D (1) of same statute^{furtherNotification} dt. 18.01.2019 issued under Section 3G (3) of the same statute by the 5th respondent further Notification dt. 11.10.2022 in NHAI/PIURJY/LA/N.H216A/Kaikaram Flyover under Section 3 G (3) of the same statute issued by the 5th respondent and also Order^{dt.18.06.2018inROC} NHAI-16/Flyover/2018/1 passed by the 5th respondent and consequently direct the respondents not to enforce the Order dt. 21.09.2023 passed in WP No. 34565 of 2022, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal.

¶40

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI SITA RAM CHAPARLA

¶41

Counsel for Respondent No.1 : SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶42

Counsel for Respondents 2 to 4 : SRI SS VARMA, SC FOR^NHAI

¶43

Counsel for Respondent No.5 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶44

WRIT APPEAL NO: 135 OF 2024

¶45

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order dated Dt.21-9-2023, in W.P. No. 34565 of 2022 on the file of the High Court.

¶46

Between —

¶47

¶48

Project Director National Highways Authority of India, Rajahmundry.

¶49

.. .Appellant/Respondent No.3

¶50

And:

¶51

Vanchala Venkata Krishna Rao S/o Satyanarayana Murthy aged 55 years, Occ Advocate, R/o D.No. 2227 Kaikaram Village Unguturu Mandal Eluru District.

¶52

Ramayanam Yesu Babu S/o Giyanna aged 39 years Occ Cultivation R/o D. No. 2235, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal Eluru District.

¶53

Karanain Prakasa Rao S/o Surya Bhaslcara Rao aged 5^ years, Occ Cultivation R/o D.No. 97, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal Eluru District.

¶54

Sanam Venugopala Rao S/o Surya Bhaskar Rao aged 54 years occ Cultivation R/o D.No. 1173, Kiakaram Village, Unguturu Mandal Eluru District.

¶55

Puppaia Madhusudana rao S/o Kanaka Durga Rao aged 65 years, Occ Cultivation R/o D.No. 1112, Kaikaram village, Unguturu Mandal Eluru District.

¶56

Vanacharla Ramakrishna Prasad S/o Lakshnamana Mohana Rao aged 50 years , Occ Cultivation R/o D.No. 915, Kaikaram Village

¶57

Unguturu Mandal , Eiuru District

¶58

Piridi Venkata Lakshmi Naravana S/o Papayya aged 80 years, RJo D.No. 285 Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal Eiuru District.

¶59

o. JL 11 lUl babu Venkata Samba Sh^a Prasad

¶60

yo Gavaracharyulu aged 56 years Occ Teacher. R/o n^Nne 71 7S Kaikaram Village, Unguturu andal Eiuru District.

¶61

Chintalapati Pardhasaradha Raj u S/o Narayana Raju aged 53 years , occ Cultivation R/o 2221, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal Eiuru District District.

¶62

Gtinnu Venkata Rao

¶63

S/o Apparffa aged 70 years Occ Cultivation, R/o D.No. 269 Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal Elura District.

¶64

Peddireddy Appala Raj u S/o R.amulu aged 56 years Occ Cultivation R/o D.No. 2223 Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal Eiuru District.

¶65

Gutttikonda Ramakrishna S/o Appa Rao aged 56 years, Occ R/o 234

¶66

Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal, Eiuru District.

¶67

13.Masavarapu Naga Venkata Srinivasa

¶68

S/o Late nagaraju aged 45 years Occ cultivation, RJo D No 52 Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal X-llPI tiru District.

¶69

Sanam Siva Rama Raj u yo Late Venkateswara Rao aged 25 yeare , Occ Cultivation ^0 D. No. 1174, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal Eiuru Distrct.

¶70

Sanam Naga Venkata Swamy Ratna Kumar S/o Late Satya Murthy aged 44 years, Occ cultivation ^0 D.No. 1172, Kaikaram Village, Ungutum Mandal Eiuru District.

¶71

Sanam Dhanalalshmi

¶72

¶73

W/o Late Venkata Nageswara Rao aged 60 years Housewife R/o D.No. 1171, Kaikai am Village, Unguturu^Mandal Eluru District.

¶74

Kona Srinivasa Rao

¶75

S/o Satyanarayana aged 50 years, Occ cultivation R/o^D.No.559 Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal Eluru District.

¶76

18. Puppala Mastan rao

¶77

S/o Kanaka Druga Rao aged 78 years Occ Business, R/o^D.no.416 Kakaram Village, Unguturu mandal Eluru District.

¶78

Yannamreddy Mani Reddy

¶79

S/o Venkata Reddy aged 45 years Occ Business R/o D.No.^294/1 Kaikaram Village , Unguturu Mandal

¶80

Eluru District

¶81

Metta Murali

¶82

S/o Satyanarayana aged 61 years Occ Business R/o D.No.²⁹³ Kaikaram Village Unturu mandal Eluru District

¶83

.. .Respondents/Petitioners

¶84

Union of India

¶85

Rep by its Secretary to Government of India Ministry of Road transport And Highways New Delhi

¶86

22.Deputy Secretary Ministry of Road transport And Highways Government of India New Delhi

¶87

23.National Highways Authority of India

¶88

O/o D.No. 412945 / A Near Kodanda Ramalayam Chalasani Nagar Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada , Krishna District

¶89

24.Competent Authority and Revenue Divisional Officer Eluru District

¶90

(Respondents 21 to 24 are not necessary parties in this petition)

¶91

... .Respondents/Respondents 1,2&4

¶92

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶93

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in W.P. No. 34565 of 2022 in the interest of justice.

¶94

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI)

¶95

Counsel for Respondents 1 to 20 : SRI SITA RAM CHAPARLA

¶96

The Court made the following :

¶97

•i

¶98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶99

HON’BLE MRJUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶100

¶101

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶102

W.A. No.1001 of 2023 along with

¶103

W.A. No.135 of 2024

¶104

W.A. No.1001 of 2023

¶105

Vanacharla Venkata Krishna Rao, S/o Satyanarayana Murthy, aged 55 years Occ. Advocate, R/o D.No.2227, Kaikaram Village, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru District & others.

¶106

... appellants

¶107

Versus

¶108

Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi and others.

¶109

...Respondents

¶110

Mr. Sita Ram Chaparla, Counsel for the appellants.

¶111

Mr. S. S. Varma, Standing Counsel for National Highways Authority of India, for respondent Nos.3 & 4.

¶112

DATE :.59.08.2024

¶113

PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ:

¶114

The present writ appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 21.09.2023, passed in W.P. No.34565 of 2022.

¶115

Briefly stated, the matter facts are as under:

¶116

¶117

HCJ a RRR, J W.A. Nos; 1001 of 2023 a 135 of 2024

¶118

to be issued by the Ministry of 2. A notification, dated 18.04.2018, came Road, Transport and Highways in purported exercise^{ofpowersconferred} 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 under sub-section 1 of Section the Act”) declaring its intention to acquire the (hereinafter referred to as the said notification for public purpose inter alia parcels of land mentioned in for construction of flyovers, vehicular underpasses,^{FourLaning/SixLaning} etc. of National Highway N0.I6/2I6A in Gundugolanu - Rajamahendravara m Section in the West Godavari District of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The intended to be used for the aforesaid total land that was identified and was public purpose was reflected as 3.5954 Hectares.

¶119

Since objections were called by virtue of notification, dated 18.04.2018, considered but rejected. Thereafter, objections filed by the petitioners were notification under Section 3D of the Act came to be^{issuedon07.12.2018by} the Central Government after having considered the report^{ofthecompetent} authority holding that the lands specified in the schedule^{beacquiredforthe} purpose as was notified in terms of notification, dated^18.04.2018.

¶120

What is important, however, is that as against 3.5954^{Hectaresearlier} envisaged to be utilized for the public purpose in^terms of the notification issued under 3A of the Act, land to an extent of only^{2.1395Hectareswas} sought to be utilized for the said public purpose in^{termsofthenotification} issued under Section 3D of the Act.

¶121

¶122

HCJ a RRR, J W.A. Nos: 1001 of 2023 a 135 of 2024

¶123

Initially, a notification, dated 18.01.2019, was issued under Section 3G(3) of the Act. However, subsequently, another notification, dated 11.10.2022, was issued under Section 3G(3) of the Act pursuant to the communication received from the Project Director, Rajamahendrava ram, on account of the reduced requirement of land in view of the reduction of the width of the National Highway from 60 meters to 46^meters. 5. Section 3G of the Act envisages payment of an amount determined by the order of a competent authority where any land is acquired under the Act. If the amount so determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to either of the parties, the said Section envisages determination of that issue by an Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government to which proceedings the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would be applicable.

¶124

Being aggrieved of the acquisition proceedings under the Act, the petitioners preferred W.P. No.34565 of 2022 before the learned single Judge, which was primarily aimed at challenging notification, dated 11.10.2022, issued under Section 3G of the Act, urging that the same was unsustainable, as it notified parcels of land different from the land that were notified in its earlier notification, dated 18.01.2019, issued under Section 3G of the Act.

¶125

It was also the case of the petitioners before the learned single Judge that the reduction in the extent of land sought to be acquired from the

¶126

¶127

HCJ a RRR, J W.A. Nos: 1001 of 2023 a 135 of 2024

¶128

petitioners would not in any way benefit them, as the remaining extents after reduction would not serve any purpose and would become useless.

¶129

Learned single Judge, vide judgment and order impugned, dated 21.09.2023, partly allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to take necessary action for issuing fresh notification under Section 3G of the Act in consonance with notification issued under Section 3A of the Act and to determine the compensation payable to the petitioners in accordance with law. This direction had its basis in the finding recorded by the learned single Judge that there was no specific provision under the Act, which would allow the Government/authorities to withdraw or reduce the extent of land sought to be acquired especially after the said land vested with the Central Government under Section 3D of the Act.

¶130

¶131

For purposes of reference. Section 3D of the Act envisages^asunder;

¶132

“3D. Declaration of acquisition.—(1) Where no objection^undersub section (1) of section 3C has been made to the competent authority within the period specified therein or where the competent authority has disallowed the objection under sub-section (2) of that section, the competent authority shall, as soon as may be, submit a report accordingly to the Central Government and on receipt of such report, the Central Government shall declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 3A.

¶133

(2) On the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.

¶134

¶135

HCJ a RRR, J W.A. Nos: 1001 of 2023 a 135 of 2024

¶136

Before us, the judgment and order impugned has been challenged both by the National Highways Authority through its Project^Director vide W.A. No. 135 of 2024 as also by the petitioners vide W.A.No.1001 of 2023.

¶137

Learned counsel for National Highways Authority urged that the judgment and order impugned passed by the learned single Judge to the extent it issued directions for ‘issuing a fresh notification under Section 3G of the Act in consonance with the notification issued under Section 3A of the Act’ was unsustainable inasmuch as, the extent of land which was mentioned in the notification under Section 3A of the Act was 3.5954 Hectares, whereas in the notification under Section 3D of the Act, the extent of land, which was finally notified for acquisition was only 2.1395 Hectares. The direction to the extent it ordered payment of compensation in terms of notification issued under Section 3A of the Act, therefore, is questioned in the present Letters Patent Appeal. Apart from this, it is stated that there was no need for the learned single Judge to order issuance of a fresh notification under Section 3G of the Act after the notification, dated 11.10.2022, had been quashed as there was in existence the notification, dated 18.01.2019.

¶138

Learned counsel for the appellants in W.A. No. 1001 of 2023, on the other hand, would urge that the entire process of acquisition should be held to be null and void inasmuch as the notification issued under Section 3A of the

¶139

¶140

HCJ a RRR, J W.A. Nos: 1001 of 2023 & 135 of 2024

¶141

Act was issued as far back as in April, 2018, and that^{thepricesofthesaid} land had more than doubled over the years and if compensation^wastobe paid today, the petitioners would not get the required^{valuefortheland,which} has since appreciated in monetary terms.

¶142

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶143

the National 13. We agree with the arguments of learned counsel for Highways Authority that the direction issued by the^{learnedsingleJudgetothe} extent it directs payment of compensation in"accordance^{withthenotification} issued under Section 3A of the Act is unsustainable inasmuch as the compensation, which is required to be paid is only^{inregardtothoseparcels} of land which find a mention in the notification under^{Section3DoftheAct,} which parcels of land are deemed to have vested in^{theNationalHighways} Authority.

¶144

We are also in agreement with the contention of the^{learnedcounselfor} the National Highways Authority that the appellants^{couldhavebeendirected} to carry forward the proceedings from the stage of^{notificationunderSection} 3G of the Act, dated 18.01.2019, which, it is stated,^{wasinconsonancewith} notification, dated 07.12.2018, issued under Section^3DoftheAct.

¶145

Insofar as Writ Appeal No.1001 of 2023 is concerned,^{thegroundtaken} is two fold. Firstly, that the second notification, dated 11.10.2022, under

¶146

HCJ a RRR, J W.A. Nos: 1001 of 2023 a 135 of 2024

¶147

Section 3G of the Act could not have been so issued^{andthattheauthorities} ought to have resorted to fresh land acquisition process by issuing a notification under Section 3A of the Act and that the^{land,whichvestsinthe} Central Government cannot be divested by any operation^{oflawexceptby} dropping the entire land acquisition proceedings. Apart^{fromthis,theground} urged is that the acquisition proceedings had been^{initiatedintheyear2018} and that since compensation was not paid till date,^{theentireacquisition} proceedings must be said to have been vitiated.

¶148

at all that the 16. In regard to the first ground, there is no dispute subsequent notification, dated 11.10.2022, under Section^{3GoftheAct,could} not have been issued, reducing the extent of lands^{soughttobeacquired,and} it was only in that context that the learned single^{Judgehaspartlyallowedthe} petition filed by the petitioners. 17. However, in regard to the issue that the entire acquisition^proceedings must be deemed to have been vitiated on account of non-payment of the compensation in the year 2018, we find that this ground^doesnotseem to have been urged before the learned single Judge much^{lessdidthelearned} single Judge have any occasion to decide the issue^{astohowtheacquisition} process would stand vitiated on account of the delay in payment of compensation. In any case, learned counsel for the^{appellantshasfailedto}

¶149

¶150

HCJ & RRR, J W.A. Nos; 1001 of 2023 a 135 of 2024

¶151

convince us as to how the process of acquisition would get vitiated on that account.

¶152

Be that as it may, we allow Writ Appeal No. 135 of 2024 to the limited extent the impugned judgment and order directs the compensation to be determined and paid in accordance with the notification issued under Section 3A of the Act, and direct the authorities to pay the compensation in accordance with the notification issued under Section 3D of the Act to all the eligible claimants. The judgment and order p£ the learned single Judge shall stand modified to that extent. Writ Appeal No. 1001 of 2023 is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No^costs.

¶153

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶154

¶155

Sd/- S.V.S.R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways Union of India, New Delhi.

¶160

The Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways Government of India, New Delhi.

¶161

National Highways Authority of India, O/o. Door^{No.41-29-45/A,} Near Kodanda Ramalayam, Chalasani Nagar, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶162

The Competent Authority and Revenue Divisional Officer,^Eluru,Eluru District, Erstwhile West Godavari District. (PTO)

¶163

One CC to SRI SITA RAM CHAPARLA Advocate [OPUC]

¶164

Two CCs to GP for SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶165

One CC to SRI SS VARMA, SC for NHAI [OPUC]

¶166

Two CCs to GP for REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶167

Three CD Copies

Madhu

•1

HIGH COURT

DATED:22/08/2024

COMMON JUDGMENT

WA.No.1001 of 2023 AND 135 OF 2024

¶174

ni
X 10 St,' rr. CO
'A<5
^ . Gurro^it Sscuon ^

¶175

DISMISSING THE WA NO.1001 OF 2023 AND ALLOWING THE WA N0.135 OF 2024 PARTLY WITHOUT COSTS

Vanacharla Venkata Krishna Rao v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanacharla Venkata Krishna Rao v. Union of India

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

Y Penchalaiah Vs the State of Ap

Gopalu Gaddamu Vs Benakappagari Mallaiah

J. Kamakshamma Vs the Union of India

M/S Shanmukha Sarees, Krishna Dist. and Another Vs Chairman, Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai and Another

M/S.Madras Cements Ltd. Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh and 2 Others

Project Director Vs Vanchala Venkata Krishna Rao