Disposed

Bandaru Pentaiah v. The District Collector

Telangana HC4 Nov 2004WP/19628/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging Land Acquisition Notifications issued for industrial projects, the single-judge High Court disposed of the petition by directing respondents to issue a notice for an enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while leaving the Section 4 notice unaffected.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to issue notice for enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Bandaru Pentaiah 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

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 19628 of 2002

¶7

Between:

¶8

1. Bandaru Pentaiah S/o Bagayya

¶9

R/o Nanakramguda (Village) Serilingampally Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

2. Bandaru Mallaiah S/o. Ramayya

¶11

R/o Nanakramguda (Village) Serilingampally Mandal

¶12

Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

3 Bandaru Narayana S/o. Ramayya

¶14

R/o Nanakramguda (Village) Serilingampally Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

..... PETITIONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddi District, Hyderabad.

¶18

2 The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Industries) Hyderabad.

¶19

3 A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. rep. by its

¶20

Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad.

¶21

.....RESPONDENTS

¶22

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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring that the action of the 1st 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 10-72002, purporting to acquire the lands of the petitioners situated in Survey Nos. 9/A and 9/B of Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddi District is

¶23

arbitrary and illegal and direct the Respondents to forbear 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. 9/A and 9/B.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATARAMANA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: G.P.FOR

¶26

LAND ACQUISITION

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR.R. SUBBA RAO,

¶28

S.C. for A.P.I.I.C

¶29

The Court made the following :

¶30

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO.19628 OF 2002

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioners, 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.

¶34

Following the same, this Writ Petition is also disposed of directing the respondents to issue notice for an enquiry under Section 5A 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.

¶35

(V.V.S.RAO, J) 4.11.2004

¶36

bnr

¶37

¶38

1 The District Collector,

¶39

Ranga Reddi District, Hyderabad.

¶40

2 The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Industries)

¶41

Hyderabad.

¶42

3 The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director,

¶43

A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.,

¶44

Hyderabad.

¶45

4 2 CCs to G.P. for Land Acquisition, High Court Bldgs., Hyderabad

¶46

(OUT)

¶47

5 2 CD copies.

Bandaru Pentaiah v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandaru Pentaiah 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

Sunireddy Subba Reddy, S/o. Pichi Reddy Vs The Dist. Collector, Prakasam Dist.

Icm School., West Godavari District Rep.by its Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Gulam Nabi Nusrat and 7 Ors. Vs Dt.Ednl.Officer N.Badand Ors.

M/s. Adapa Gollamma Educational Society Vs Bank of India Devalayam Street Kakinada

M.Ramulu , Vs The District Educational Officer

S.V Damodhar Vs The Director