Dismissed

Gujja Someshwar Rao, v. Kakatiya Urban Development Authority

Telangana HC5 Jun 2006WP/2881/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the demolition and dispossession of petitioners' properties by the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority for a truck terminal project, the court, after hearing counsel and noting the Authority's claim of government sanction, directed the respondents to proceed in accordance with the law. The petition was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; no costs awarded. Respondents directed to proceed in accordance with the law.

Gujja Someshwar Rao, Vs Kakatiya Urban Development… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

¶2

W.P.No.2881 of 2005

¶3

th Date: 5 June, 2006

¶4

Between :-

¶5

1. Gujja Someshwar Rao, S/o. Upender Rao.

¶6

2. M. Srinivas, S/o. Thathabbiai,

¶7

3. K. Upenderamai, S/o. Kistaiah.

¶8

4. Abdul Khadar, S/o. Hussain.

¶9

5. Smt. Rehana Begum, W/o. Mohd. Saleem

¶10

6. Ullengala Shankaraiah, S/o. Venkataiah

¶11

7. Md.Ayub, S/o. Abdul

¶12

8. Md.Zamaluddin, S/o. Abdul

¶13

9. Smt. M.Ramaleela, W/o. Krishna Murthy

¶14

10. Mudigonda Subramanyam, S/o. Nandaiah

¶15

..Petitioners

¶16

and

¶17

1. Kakatiya Urban Development Authority

¶18

Rep. By its Vice Chairman, Warangal

¶19

2. The District Collector, Warangal.

¶20

3. Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanamkonda Mandal Warangal. .. Respondents

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

¶22

W.P.No.2881 of 2005

¶23

ORDER:-

¶24

1. Heard the Counsel.

¶25

2. The writ petitioners filed the present Writ Petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in dispossessing or demolishing the house properties bearing No.565/2E, 5-56/71, 5-56/6, 5-56/3, 5-56/2A, 5-58 of the petitioners situated at Satya Sai Nagar in survey Nos.138 to 151 and 245 to 256 of URSU village under the Board Thimmapuram Gram Panchayat, Warangal Rural, Warangal District, without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, without any sanction of law and violative of principles of natural Justice and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 30 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restrain from dispossessing or demolishing the premises of the petitioners and pass such other suitable orders.

¶26

3. This Court had issued an interim direction dated 18-2-2005 in W.P.M.P.No.3887 of 2005.

¶27

4. The sale deeds in relation to the properties referred to supra also had been filed. The first respondent filed counter affidavit, stating at para 5 of the counter affidavit, to the effect that the said respondent

¶28

had submitted the proposal to the District Collector, Warangal for initiation of land acquisition proceedings for acquiring land for establishment of the truck terminal as the Government of Andhra Pradesh accorded the permission vide G.O.Rt.No.1194 MA, dt.30-102 0 0 4 . The said G.O.Rt.No.1194 MA, dt.30-10-2004 reads as hereunder:-

¶29

MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN

¶30

DEVELOPMENT (H2) DEPARTMENT

¶31

G.O.Rt.No.1194 M.A., Dated: 3 0 th October,2004

¶32

Read:

¶33

From V.C., Kakatiya Urban Development Authority,

¶34

Warangal Lr.Roc.No.Ex.C.2/254/04, dt.02.03.2004.

¶35

O R D E R :

¶36

The Vice Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal in the letter read above has stated that the authority is proposing to develop a Truck Terminal at Thimmapur (v), near Warangal city in Kakatiya Urban Development Authority limits with an extent of Acs.50.00 with an estimated cost of Rs.1148 lakhs to provide parking, loading and unloading and the said Truck Terminal will decongest the city and reduce traffic congestion and alsot takeup the construction of shops, offices, godowns etc., and disposed off to transport association and others on cost to cost basis. It is further reported that the authority has identified the certain pockets of private and including assigned Government land on outskirts of the Warangal city it is proposed to acquire an extent of Acs.50.00 under Section 18 of A.P.U.A. (Dev.) Act, 1975 under compulsory L.A. covering in Sy.Nos.140 to 144, 150 of Urus and 245, 246 to 249 and 256 of Thimmapur villages and requested the Government to accord administrative sanction to an estimated cost of Rs.1148.00 lakhs to acquire lands and develop the Goods and Truck Terminal Project at Warangal city.

¶37

In the circumstances reported by the Vice Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority. Warangal in the letter read above, the Government after careful examination of the matter hereby accord administrative sanction for establishing a Goods and Truck Terminal at Thimmapur (v), near Warangal city in Kakatiya Urban Development Authority limits in an extent of Acs.50.00 with an estimated cost of Rs.1148.00 lakhs subject to the condition that the said project shall be taken up by the Kakatiya Urban Development

¶38

Authority, Warangal with its own source of funds and without any financial commitment from the Government side and that the project should be implemented on a self-paying basis.

¶39

5. In the light of the specific stand taken by the first respondent, it is needless to say that the respondents are at liberty to further proceed in accordance with law by following the procedure. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶40

Justice P.S.Narayana

¶41

Date: 5^th June, 2006

¶42

SMR

Gujja Someshwar Rao, v. Kakatiya Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gujja Someshwar Rao, v. Kakatiya Urban Development Authority

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

Biry Lalitha, Vs v. Sudhershan

The Miryalguda Municipality, Vs Yechuri Krishna Murthy

G. Krishna Murthy S/o Raja Rao Vs The Sate of a.P., rep by Principal Secretary to Government

Sri Belegam Rama Sankara Rao Vs The Commissioner

Siripurapu Appa Rao Vs District Collector

Mir Mujahid Ali, Vs The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad