Partly allowed

Nalu Suba Rao v. The District Collector

Telangana HC8 Sept 2006WP/18632/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that invoking the urgency clause does not justify dispensing with the Section 5-A enquiry. The notification was set aside, directing the respondents to issue notices for objections and hold the statutory enquiry before considering dispossession or final acquisition.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to issue notice for objections under Section 5-A and conduct enquiry; no disposssession until decision communicated.

Nalu Suba Rao Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

W.P.No. 18632 of 2006

08-09-2006

Between:-

Nalu Subba Rao

Petitioner And

The District Collector, East Godavary district at Kakinada and two others.

¶8

Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶10

W.P.No. 18632 of 2006

¶11

Oral order:

¶12

The petitioner’s lands are sought to be acquired by the issuance of a notification dated: 23-07-2006 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.

¶13

The impugned notification states that the acquisition is for the purpose of allotment of house-sites to the weaker sections under Indiramma Scheme. 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

¶14

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 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. 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.

¶16

_________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶17

Dated:08-09-2006 Pvks/*

Nalu Suba Rao v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalu Suba Rao 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

Smt.U.Lakshmi Devi, Vs Government of a.P., rep., by its Secretary, Revenue

Botcha Lakshmi Vs The Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Law and Order

Smt.K.v.N.v.Bharathi Devi Vs Sri S.Ravi Prasad, Zonal Manager

Peddipinna Rajeshwari, Vs The District Collector

M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Weigh Bridge, Vs The Assistant Zonal Manager (D) and Commissioner

Sri B.H. Sudhir Varma Vs Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation