Disposed

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

Telangana HC15 Jun 2006WP/9558/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court court declared irrational the invocation of the urgency clause and dispensing with the Section 5-A enquiry in a land acquisition notification. It directed respondents to issue a notice for objection submission and barred dispossession pending the decision.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to issue notice to petitioners for submission of objections; petitioners not to be dispossessed pending communication of decision.

S. Sumantha Rao, Vs The District Collector, ( aLand… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 9558 OF 2006

¶3

BETWEEN: S.Sumantha Rao son of Gopala Raio and three others …Petitioners vs. The District Collector (Land Acquisition) and two others …Respondents

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 9558 OF 2006

¶6

ORAL ORDER

¶7

The petitioners’ lands are sought to be acquired by the issuance of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). Urgency clause has been invoked under Section 17 (4) of the Act and the enquiry

¶8

under Section. 5-A of the Act dispensed with mechanically and without due application of mind, is the complainant.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

GODA RAGHURAM,J

¶13

*TSNR

¶14

15^th JUNE 2006

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Madala Dharani Vs The District Collector

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

Syamala Jankamma, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments