Disposed

G.Suryanarayana ERao v. The District Collector, West Godavari District

Telangana HC8 Oct 2007WP/18260/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition questioning a land acquisition notification. The court held that the petitioner's objections regarding agricultural land classification and lack of prior conversion under state law must be raised before the Land Acquisition Officer during the 5-A enquiry rather than in this petition.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to raise all objections during 5-A enquiry; Land Acquisition Officer directed to consider the objections and pass orders with reasons.

G.Suryanarayana ERao Vs The District Collector, West… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.18260 of 2007

¶7

Between: G.Suryanarayana Rao

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru and 2 others

¶10

.....RESPONDENTS

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.18260 of 2007

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, questioning the notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire the land for the purpose of providing house sites.

¶15

The main objection of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the land in question is an agricultural land and the petitioner is an agriculturist and his lands are being sought to be acquired even though his land is situated away from the village Narasapuram though in fact the lands of rich landlords are available. Another main objection raised by the petitioner is that the respondents did not comply the provisions of A.P.Agricultural Land (Conversion for non-Agricultural purposes) Act, 2006. It is stated that as per Sec.3 of the said Act no agricultural land can be utilized for non-agricultural purposes unless it is converted by following the prescribed procedure. Therefore, according to the petitioner, since the said procedure is not complied with, the acquisition is bad.

¶16

The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, though no counter is filed, contended that the issue as to the requirement of compliance of the provisions of A.P.Agricultural Land (Conversion for non-Agricultural purposes) Act, 2006, as decided by this Court earlier, the said provisions are not required to be complied with by the

¶17

Government while initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose other than agricultural purpose. With reference to the other objections raised by the petitioner that the land is an agricultural land and he is small farmer while the lands of rich landlords are available etc. are to be considered during 5-A enquiry, as 5-A enquiry was not dispensed with. Therefore, the petitioner is given liberty to give raise all his objections during 5-A enquiry before the Land Acquisition Officer and on raising such objections, the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, giving reasons.

¶18

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶19

___________________ S.ANANDA REDDY.J Dated: 0810.2007 Dsr

G.Suryanarayana ERao v. The District Collector, West Godavari District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Suryanarayana ERao v. The District Collector, West Godavari 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

The Vaddera Co-operative Labour Contract Vs The Narsaraopeta Municipality

A. Dhana laxmi Vs The Special Deputy Collector (La)

Sri Balaji Constructions, Vs The Government of A.P. T(Randb) Department

Waheedunnisa Begum Vs The Municipality, Jagtial, Karimnagar District

Sabavat rukman Naik, Vs The Municipal Corporationof Hyderabad

Venkteswara Rao, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation