Petitioner challenged land acquisition notification on grounds of suitability and livelihood impact. Court dismissed the petition as misconceived, noting objections were properly lodged for the Section 5-A enquiry and no merits existed for judicial intervention at this stage.
Writ petition dismissed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
W.P.No. 25993 of 2006
15-12-2006
Between:-
Talluri Sitaram Mounisa
Petitioner And
The District Collector, West Godavari district, Eluru and two others.
Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
W.P.No. 25993 of 2006
Oral order:
The writ petition is misconceived. In respect of land in an extent of Ac.01-45 cents in R.S.No. 51/1, D. Muppavaram village, Nidadavolu mandal, West Godavari district, a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 10-10-2006 proposing its acquisition for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act has not been dispensed with invoking urgency clause. Notice in Form-III was issued to the landowner soliciting objections to the acquisition process. Objections were lodged by the petitioner on 0611-2006. No declaration under Section 6 of the Act has yet been issued.
Nevertheless, apprehending rejection of his objections and continuance with the process of acquisition, this writ petition is filed on what is presently a mere apprehension. The petitioner urges a number of grounds, already included in her memorandum of objections viz., that the acquisition is for weaker sections and the location of the lands to be acquired is beyond a reasonable distance from an existing colony of weaker section persons in the village; that the lands of the petitioner are valuable; and that the petitioner has no other lands, except the land proposed in the impugned acquisition and therefore she would be deprived of her livelihood.
None of the above grounds require to be considered by this court particularly in the context that the petitioner having already made these objections in her memorandum of objections, which will have to be considered by the competent authority in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act.
On the aforesaid analysis, there are no merits. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J
Dated:15-12-2006 Pvks/*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition can be maintained on mere apprehension of rejection of objections without a formal declaration.
Whether the court should consider objections regarding land suitability and livelihood impact already submitted to the competent authority.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Talluri Sitaram Mounisa
The District Collector, West Godavari district, Eluru
two others
GODA RAGHURAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
