Quashed

Valluri Venkata Swamy, v. State of a.P., rep. by District Collector

Telangana HC12 Jun 2006WP/11157/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging a draft notification for land acquisition. It held the invocation of the urgency clause was arbitrary, quashed the declaration, and directed the authorities to conduct a Section 5-A enquiry before proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with declaration invalidating the Section 6 order and directing a Section 5-A enquiry with communication of objections before further steps.

Valluri Venkata Swamy, Vs State of a.P., rep. by District… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

W.P.NO. 11157 OF 2006

¶3

DATED: 12.6.2006

¶4

Between:

¶5

Valluri Venkata Swamy

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

and

¶8

State of A.P., represented by District Collector, East Godavari and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶11

W.P.NO.11157 OF 2006

¶12

ORAL ORDER:

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and at request the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶14

The petitioner claims to be a small farmer owning Ac.2.00 of land in Sy.Nos.21 and 22/2B of Mernipadu village, Mandapeta Mandal, East Godavari District. In 1975, states the petitioner, the Government acquired Ac.0.50 cents of his land for providing house-sites. The petitioner also states that there is Ac.3.00 land available in Sy.No.11 of the village in which the house-sites could be provided for landless poor persons. The petitioner also claims to be an activist of the Telugu Desam Party.

¶15

In the writ petition, he assails the draft notification dated 4.5.2006 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) proposing acquisition of Ac.0.80 cents of land in Sy.No.22/2. The notification has also invoked the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act and dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The acquisition is stated to be for provision of house-sites to the weaker sections.

¶16

The legitimacy for invoking the urgency clause is not apparent. Urgency has been invoked irrationally and arbitrarily. In the circumstances while invalidating the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 23.5.2006, the respondents are directed to cause enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and receive the objections of the petitioner and decide upon those objections as to the need for acquisition of the land before proceeding further in the matter, duly communicating the decision to the petitioner simultaneously with the recommendations made after the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act.

¶17

With the above directions and declaration, the writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall not be dispossessed pending communication of the decision consequent on the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. There shall however be no order as to costs.

¶18

GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶19

Date: 12.6.2006

¶20

Note: Copy as soon as possible. Bo cvm

Valluri Venkata Swamy, v. State of a.P., rep. by District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valluri Venkata Swamy, v. State of a.P., rep. by 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

Sri Kadali Subba Rao, Vs The Regional Joint Commissioner

Sri Medala Valasa Bhaskara Rao, Vs The Government of A.P

T.Ravindranadha Tagore Vs The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad

Sri P.v.a.S.Nehru Mohan Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Teyagura Poli Reddy Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments

Garapati Sri Amarnath, Vs The Sub-Collector and Electroal Registration Officer