Disposed

Smt. U. Aarathi Bai, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC17 Jun 2005WP/19541/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the arbitrary issuance of a Land Acquisition Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court disposed of the petition by directing an enquiry under Section 5A while leaving the Section 4 notice intact.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to respondents to notify the petitioner for an enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Section 4 notification was not interfered with.

Smt. U. Aarathi Bai, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2005)

¶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.19541 of 2002

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. U. Aarathi Bai, W/o. late Bhagwan Singh, R/o. Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddi District.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddi District at Hyderabad.

¶12

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

¶13

Hyderabad.

¶14

3 A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its

¶15

Vice Chariman & Managing Director, Hyderabad.

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 Notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in File No.G1/7180/2000 dt.10.7.2002, purporting to acquire the lands of the petitioner situated in Survey Nos.4 and 10 of an extent of Ac.1.36 guntas situated at Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is 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.4&10 and grant such other relief as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR. R. SUBBA RAO

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO.19541 OF 2002

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

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.

¶24

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 petitioner and take appropriate further action after such enquiry. The notice under Section 4 of the Act is not interfered with. No costs.

¶25

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

¶26

bnr

¶27

¶28

1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad.

¶29

2 The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Industries)

¶30

Hyderabad.

¶31

3 The Vice Chairman and Managing Director,

¶32

A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Hyderabad.

¶33

4 Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, High Court

¶34

Buildings, Hyderabad. (O.U.T)

¶35

5 Two C.D. Copies.

Smt. U. Aarathi Bai, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. U. Aarathi Bai, 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

M/s. Diamond Tele Tubes, Vs The a.P.Industrial Development

M/S.Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd. AND1 Vs Dist.Inspector(Legal Metrology WANDM)AND1

Mr. Naresh Singh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Margam Sizing works, rep.by its Proprietor, Vs The Co-operative Electric Supply society Ltd.

P.Mahaboob Basha Vs The Regional Manager

C. Naganna, Vs The Director of Civil Supplies