Disposed

Sri Vinod Kumar Kedia, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC11 Oct 2004WP/17158/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash a land acquisition notification. It held that since notice for the Section 5-A survey was already issued, the petitioners could object to the public purpose then or challenge the acquisition after the declaration under Section 6.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of without passing order in its favour.

Sri Vinod Kumar Kedia, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 17158 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

1. Sri Vinod Kumar Kedia, S/o Banwari Lal Kedia,

¶9

r/o 5-9-22/52, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad.

¶10

2. Sri Hitesh Kedia, S/o Vinod Kumar Kedia,

¶11

r/o 5-9-22/52, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad.

¶12

3. Sri Sumeet Kedia, S/o Vinod Kumar Kedia,

¶13

r/o 5-9-22/52, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad.

¶14

..... PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Having its office at Khairtabad, Hyderabad - 500 004.

¶17

2 The Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016.

¶18

.....RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to notification under Section-4 of the Land Acquisition Act with No. G2/3174/2004, dt. 19-6-2004 issued by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article-14 of constitution of India, and direct the respondent No.2 to conduct enquiry under Section-5A of the Act by giving opportunity to the petitioner.

¶20

For the Petitioner: MR.RESU.MAHENDER REDDY, Advocate

¶21

For the Respondents : GP FOR LAND ACQUISITON

¶22

The Court made the following :

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after filing the writ petition, notice to conduct Sec.5-A enquiry under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) has been issued to the petitioners fixing the date for enquiry on 15-10-2004.

¶25

In view of the same, the petitioners can very well participate in the enquiry and raise objection that the land which is sought to be acquired is not needed for public purpose during the enquiry and in the event, if the petitioners fail to convince the authorities in getting the lands deleted from the acquisition notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, it is always open for the petitioners to challenge the acquisition after 5-A enquiry and after publication of declaration under Sec.6 of the Act.

¶26

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

11-10-2004

kmr

1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District,

¶31

Having its office at Khairtabad, Hyderabad - 500 004.

¶32

2 The Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016.

¶33

3. 2CCs to the Govt., Pleader for Land Acquisition, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)

¶34

4. 2CD copies

Sri Vinod Kumar Kedia, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vinod Kumar Kedia, v. The District Collector

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

Maramreddy Kondaiah S/o Bakkaiah Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer, P.C. Palli

Vishnu Dutt, Vs Government of A.P.

Smt. K.Varjula Damayanthi, Vs The Commissioner Alwal

R.Hanumantha Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Y. Ankineedu Prasad, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ramadas Telaganeedi Aided Upper Primary School, Vs District Educational Officer