Disposed

Grandhi Naga Umaratnam v. The Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional

Telangana HC4 Jan 2008WP/168/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the failure to consider objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and alleged interference with possession, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the objections and decide them according to law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the objections of the petitioners and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

Grandhi Naga Umaratnam Vs The Land Acquisition… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 168 OF 2008

¶3

DATED: 04-01-2008

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

1. Grandhi Naga Umaratnam D/o. Veeraraju, R/o.Mummidivaram village And Mandal, East Godavari District and three others

¶6

…Petitioners

¶7

and

¶8

1. The Land Acquisition Officer-cumRevenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari District and another

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO.168 OF 2008

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard the counsel.

¶14

The counsel for petitioners Sri V.Ramchander Goud, submits that without considering the objections raised by the writ petitioners, the respondents are further proceeding with the land acquisition proceedings.

¶15

On the contrary, the learned Asst. Government Pleader for Land Acquisition would submit that the objections raised by the petitioners, if any, would be considered in accordance with law.

¶16

The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus seeking to declare the action of the first respondent in not taking the objections submitted by the petitioners in response to the notice issued under Sec.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act on 05-12-2007 and the action of the 2^nd respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in S.Nos.919/2, 919/3 and 921/3 to an extent of Ac.0.19 cents, Ac.1.62 cents and Ac.0.94 cents of Mummidivaram village and Mandal, East Godavari District, of the petitioners as illegal

¶17

and arbitrary.

¶18

Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the objections raised by them are not being considered by the first respondent.

¶19

In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the objections of the petitioners and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶20

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶21

__________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J.

¶22

Dated: 04-01-2008 rns

Grandhi Naga Umaratnam v. The Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Grandhi Naga Umaratnam v. The Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional

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

G.Deepthi, Vs the Joint Collector

Adabala Satyanarayana Murthy S/o Rama Murthy Vs Government of a.P., Irrigation and Drainage Department

N.H.Quarishi Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Survari Venkata Ranga Rao, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Vegalapudi Venkteswara Rao, Vs The Dist Collector

Surapaneni Ramachandra Rao Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada Division