Partly allowed

Suraram Malla Reddy and 13 Ors. v. the Dist.Collector Rr Dist.and 3 Ors.

Telangana HC25 Oct 2004WP/17935/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged land acquisition notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court declined to interfere with the Section 4 notice but directed the respondents to issue a notice for an enquiry under Section 5(A) to the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to issue notice for enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 4 notice not interfered with.

Suraram Malla Reddy and 13 Ors. Vs the Dist.Collector Rr… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 17935 of 2002

¶7

Between:

¶8

1. Suraram Malla Reddy, S/o. Late Sri Chandraiah

¶9

2. Suraram Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy

¶10

3. Suraram Anji Reddy, S/o. Late Sri Chandraiah,

¶11

4. Suraram Sreenivasa Reddy, S/o. Sri Anji Reddy,

¶12

5. Suraram Madhava Reddy, S/o. Sri Anji Reddy.

¶13

6. Suraram Jaya Reddy, S/o. Sri Anji Reddy.

¶14

7. Suraram Sekhar Reddy, S/o. Sri Anji Reddy

¶15

8. Suraram Urmila Bai D/o. Sri Anji Reddy

¶16

9. Suraram Sada Reddy, S/o. late Sri Chandraiah

¶17

10. Suraram Krishna Reddy S/o. Late Sri Chikkaiah

¶18

11. Suraram Meghamala D/o. Krishna Reddy,

¶19

12. Suraram Surrender Reddy S/o. Krishna Reddy

¶20

13. Suraram Lakshma Reddy S/o. Late Sri Chukkaiah R/o. 2-8/1, Nanakramguda.

¶21

14. Suraram Laka Reddy, S/o. late Sri Chukkaiah R/o. 2-8/2, Nanakramguda.

¶22

(All the petitioners are residing inb Nanakramguda village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.)

¶23

..... PETITIONERS

¶24

AND

¶25

1. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad.

¶26

2. The Land Acquisition Officer (Industries) and Special Deputy Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad.

¶27

3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District.

¶28

4. The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, Parisrama Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad rep. By its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director.

¶29

.....RESPONDENTS

¶30

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring that the action of the 1^st respondent in issuing Land Acquisition Notifications under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in File No.G1/7180/2000 dated 10-7-2002, purporting to acquire the lands of the petitioners situated in Survey Nos.19 to 21, 23 to 24 and 28 of Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is arbitrary and illegal and direct the respondents to for bear from acquiring the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of development of new projects by A.P.I.I.C. Limited and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the agricultural patta lands situated in Survey Nos.19 to 21, 23 to 24 and 28 and grant such other relief.

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.RAMESH BABU

¶32

Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶33

Counsel for Respondent No.4: Mr. R. Subba Rao.

¶34

The Court made the following :

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (LA) and the learned Standing Counsel for A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation agreed that this Court disposed of W.P.No.21712 of 2002 on 25-4-2003 wherein the same declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act) dated 10-7-2002 was challenged on various grounds.

¶37

Following the same this Writ Petition is also disposed of directing the respondents to issue notice for an enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act to the petitioners and take appropriate further action after such enquiry. The notice under Section 4 of the Act is not interfered with. No costs.

¶38

V.V.S. Rao, J.

¶39

25^th October, 2004.

¶40

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶41

Js.

¶42

¶43

1. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad.

¶44

2. The Land Acquisition Officer (Industries) and Special Deputy Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad.

¶45

3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District.

¶46

4. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, Parisrama Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶47

5. 2 CCs to G.P. for Land Acquisition, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶48

6. 2 CD copies.

Suraram Malla Reddy and 13 Ors. v. the Dist.Collector Rr Dist.and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraram Malla Reddy and 13 Ors. v. the Dist.Collector Rr Dist.and 3 Ors.

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

V.S.R. Buildings Owners Wel.Asso. Vsp Vs Comm. Visakapatnam Municipal Corp. Vsp.

Majeti Panduranganath Vs the Commi.Guntur Muni.Corp.Guntur

S.Balusaku Vs Asst Engr. Telecommunication Tekkali Andan

Smt.M.Sivamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Chintalapati Pullam Raju Vs The District Collector,Eluru

K. Bhaskara Rao Vs The State of a.P., rep by its