Disposed

K.Vishwanatham Goud, v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

Telangana HC15 Dec 2006WP/26075/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging a land acquisition notification. It held that the notification under Section 4(1) is tentative and that the authority must issue a notice under Section 5-A for objections before taking a final decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the proposed land unless served with a notice under Section 5-A to lodge objections.

K.Vishwanatham Goud, Vs District Collector, Ranga Reddy… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

W.P.No. 26075 of 2006

¶3

15-12-2006

¶4

Between:-

¶5

K. Vishwanatham Goud and three others.

¶6

Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

District Collector, Ranga Reddy district at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and two others.

¶9

Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶11

W.P.No. 26075 of 2006

¶12

Oral order:

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The petitioners assail the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazettee on 04-11-2006 whereby the lands of the petitioners in an extent of Ac.03-08 gts., in survey Nos.33 to 38, Ahmedguda village, Keesara mandal, Ranga Reddy district were proposed to be acquired for the formation of an approach road to the Rajiv Gruhakalpa Scheme.

¶14

It would appear that even earlier to the impugned notification, as the officials of the third respondent visited the petitioners’ property in June, 2006 for making local

¶15

inspection for eventual proposals to acquire the land, the petitioners submitted a representation to the Executive Director of the A.P. Housing Board in August, 2006 agreeing to part with 50’ width road of a length of 1008 meters at a different location. The petitioners’ grievance is that without considering such representation, the respondents have commenced acquisition proposals and have issued a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act.

¶16

The notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act is but a draft proposal for acquisition of specified property, under the provisions of the Act. In the context of the fact that the notification does not invoke the urgency clause and the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act has not been dispensed with, the respondents are obligated to issue a notice to the petitioners calling upon the them to lodge their objections to the acquisition proposals. On objections being lodged, the respondents are bound to consider the same and the competent authority must take a decision under Section 5-A (2) of the Act. It is equally possible that whatever has earlier been represented by the petitioners, if set out in their memorandum of objections submitted (pursuant to a notice under Section 5-A of the Act), may commend acceptance by the respondents and they may give up the acquisition as proposed. It is only after a decision is taken under Section 5-A (2) of the Act, is communicated to the

¶17

petitioners, that the petitioners will have a grievance. A notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act is a tentative proposal to acquire the land and the proposal is wholly fluid and flexible at this stage.

¶18

On the aforesaid analysis, there are no merits. The writ petition is disposed of declaring that the petitioners shall not be liable to be dispossessed from the lands proposed for acquisition by the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act dated 04-11-2006, unless they are issued a notice calling for objections under Section

¶19

5-A of the Act and till a decision is taken on their objections by the competent authority and communicated to them by registered post acknowledgement due. No costs.

¶20

____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶21

Dated:15-12-2006 Pvks/*

K.Vishwanatham Goud, v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vishwanatham Goud, v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

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

S.Md.Abbas Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

J.Satyasri Ram Babu, Vs a.P.State Warehousing Corporation (a State

P.Malla Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Talluri Sitaram Mounisa, Vs The District Collector

B.Raghurami Reddy, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its

C. Suryanarayana Murthy S/o.late Vs Governmetn of Andhra Pradesh,Represented