Partly allowed

Madala Dharani v. The District Collector

Telangana HC15 Jun 2006WP/11882/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that invoking the urgency clause and dispensing with the Section 5-A enquiry for allotment of house-sites was irrational. The court quashed the impugned notification and directed the authorities to issue notice for objections, consider them, and keep the petitioner in possession pending the decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner not to be dispossessed pending decision; Respondent to issue notice for objections and consider them; Conduct enquiry under Section 5-A and communicate decision.

Madala Dharani Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

W.P.No. 11882 of 2006

15-06-2006

Between:-

Madala Dharani

Petitioner

And

The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam and two others.

¶9

Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶11

W.P.No.11882 of 2006

¶12

Oral order:

¶13

The petitioner’s lands are sought to be acquired by the issuance of a notification dated: 29-05-2006 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). Urgency clause was invoked under Section 17 (4) of the Act and the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with mechanically and without due application of mind, is the complaint.

¶14

The impugned notification states that the acquisition is for the purpose of allotment of house-sites for weaker sections. This requirement is not of such an emergent nature as would justify invocation of the urgency clause and dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is a salutary statutory provision intended for affording a reasonable opportunity to the owners of lands to object to the acquisition on any relevant grounds as they wish to submit.

¶15

In the aforesaid circumstances, the decision in the impugned notification to invoke the urgency clause and dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is declared irrational and unsustainable. The respondents are directed to issue notice to the

¶16

petitioner for submission of objections if any to the proposal to acquire the lands. On the petitioner submitting his objections within the time stipulated in the notice, the same shall be considered and an appropriate decision taken duly communicating the decision to the petitioner simultaneously with the recommendations made after the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act by the acquiring authority. The petitioner shall not be dispossessed pending communication of the decision to the petitioner consequent on the enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act.

¶17

The writ petition is disposed of as above at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. There shall however be no order as to costs.

¶18

GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶19

Dated:15-06-2006 Pvks/*

Madala Dharani v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madala Dharani 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

Nandimpalli Surapa Raju, Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

Syed Sayeed Pasha, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board

T. Arun Kumar, Vs The District Collector

S. Sumantha Rao, Vs The District Collector, ( aLand Acquisition)

Yalla Subba Rao Vs The District Collector, East Godavari District at

Syamala Jankamma, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments