Disposed

Vedula Govinda Sharma v. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District

Telangana HC4 Oct 2007WP/25924/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions challenging land acquisition notifications. The court ruled that pending Section 5-A enquiries render the petitions premature, directing the Land Acquisition Officer to hold the hearing and pass appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; the petitioner are entitled to file objections under Section 5-A; the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to hear all parties and pass appropriate orders.

Vedula Govinda Sharma Vs The District Collector… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA

¶2

PRADESH

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 4^th DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY

¶8

WRIT PETITION No. 25924 of 2006

¶9

Between:

¶10

Vedula Govind Sharma & another

¶11

..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Visakhapatnam And two others.

¶12

.....RESPONDENTS

¶13

a n d

¶14

WRIT PETITION No. 21629 of 2006

¶15

Between:

¶16

P. Gopala Krishnam Raju & others

¶17

..... PETITIONERS AND The Government of A.P., rep. by The District Collector, Visakhapatnam And three others.

¶18

.....RESPONDENTS

¶19

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY

¶20

WRIT PETITION No. 25924 of 2006, And WRIT PETITION No. 21629 of 2006,

¶21

COMMON ORDER:

¶22

The first writ petition i.e, W.P.No.25924 of 2006 is filed by the Petitioners questioning the Notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 06.07.2006 with reference to the Sy.Nos.7/1 to 8 of Narava village, Pendurti mandal, Visakhapatnam district; while the second writ petition i.e., W.P.No.21629 of 2006 is filed by another set of persons questioning both the notification issued under Sec.4(1) and Sec.6 declaration with reference to some of the lands referred in the earlier writ petition.

¶23

2. In respect of the notification, the respondent authorities proposed to acquire an extent of Ac.71-00 land for which Sec.4(1) Notification was issued with reference to the lands situated at Narava village. It is stated that though after conducting Sec.5-A enquiry, Sec.6 declaration was also issued. However, in the earlier writ petition that was filed by some of the owners of the lands, Sec.6 declaration was quashed, directing the authorities to conduct 5-A enquiry, in spite of the fact that such enquiry was already conducted.

¶24

3. In the present writ petitions, the grounds that are urged by the petitioners are that an extent of Ac.560-00 land was acquired for the purpose of Export Processing Zone; out of which Ac.360-00 was used, leaving the remaining land of Ac.200-00. The said left over land is situated in Sy.Nos. 4, 5, 6 of the same village, i.e., Narava village. Now the respondents are proposed to acquire another extent of Ac.71-00 land. Since the land already acquired is available, which is left over by the respondents, the proposed acquisition is illegal and without jurisdiction.

¶25

4. Similarly, the other contention is that the land in question has already been converted into the non-agricultural land for the purpose of residential plots by changing even the master plan. As the authorities have already allowed the conversion of the land into the residential plots, where even some of the residential houses were put up, the proposed acquisition is illegal and without jurisdiction, and therefore, the Petitioners sought for quashing of the impugned notification. In fact, the petitioners in the second writ petition claimed to have a right over the lands that are referred to in the first writ petition to the extent of lands mentioned in the second writ petition.

¶26

5. In any case, without going into all those aspects, both the writ petitions are disposed of, since it is proposed to conduct Sec.5-A enquiry once again, and it is represented that notices have already been issued. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are entitled to file their objections and raise their claims raising all grounds that are available to them under law, which are required to be considered by the Land Acquisition Officer during the course of Sec.5-A enquiry. The Land

¶27

Acquisition Officer is also directed to pass appropriate orders after hearing all the parties.

¶28

6. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶29

____________________ S.ANANDA REDDY.J

¶30

Dated: 04..10..2007 kvh

¶31

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY

¶32

WRIT PETITION No. 25924 of 2006, And

¶33

WRIT PETITION No. 21629 of 2006 COMMON ORDER

¶34

Dt. 04...10...2007

Vedula Govinda Sharma v. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vedula Govinda Sharma v. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam 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

R.Jagan Mohan Rao (died) per L.Rs. Vs The Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit

Syed Hasham Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Mohd Abdul Sattar Vs The Greater Municipal Corporation, rep. by its

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

P. Gopala Krishnam Raju, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Athili Appala Swamy Vs The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation