Allowed

K.Satyanarayanaraju, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC16 Jun 2009WA/1237/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ appeal against the rejection of a land assignment proposal. It confirmed that the petitioner had no vested right and the government's rejection was legal due to public interest, allowing a fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was disposed of, confirming the impugned order and allowing the appellant to make a fresh representation for land assignment upon payment of market value.

K.Satyanarayanaraju, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

W.A.No.1237 of 2002

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J)

¶4

The unsuccessful petitioner challenges the order dated 14.6.2002 dismissing the writ petition, WP No.23385 of 2001. The petitioner sought consideration of his case for assignment of an extent of Ac.1.85 cents of land in R.S.No.313/2A1 of Gollalakoderu Village, Palakoderu Mandal, West Godavari District. The same was recommended by the Deputy Executive Engineer and also the District Collector. But the Government by proceedings dated 29.03.2001 impugned in the writ petition rejected the proposal stipulating four grounds for the same. The four grounds read as hereunder:

¶5

(a) The land in question is abutting the right bank of Yanamaderru drain.

¶6

(b) This drain comes under the River Conservancy Act, 1884.

¶7

(c) This land is very near to confluence point of the drain and

¶8

(d) During flood season, the said land is required for storing flood materials.

¶9

The rejection was challenged by the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition. The learned single judge having considered the matter rightly held that the petitioner had no vested right to insist upon assignment of the subject land in his favour. Further, the grounds of rejection given by the Government cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. Public interest being paramount, as rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, cannot be sacrificed for the interest of a single individual. The writ appeal is, therefore, devoid of merit.

¶10

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant sought the leave of this Court to make a fresh representation to the authorities for assignment of land.

¶11

Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of, confirming the order dated 14.6.2002 in WP No.23385 of 2001 and leaving it open to the appellant to make a fresh representation to the authorities concerned for assignment of a suitable land upon payment of market value. If any such representation is made, the same shall be considered in accordance with law expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

__________________ (T.MEENA KUMARI,J)

¶13

___________________ (SANJAY KUMAR,J)

¶14

Dated: 16.06.2009 rkk

K.Satyanarayanaraju, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Satyanarayanaraju, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Farhad Gew Irani, Vs The District Collector

Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar, Vs Gudipati Venkata Gayathri

M.Jayaramudu, Vs M/s. Sree Rayalaseema Paper Mills Limited

Ch. Krishna Murthy, President the Komarada Garllamudi, Vs Rvr Subbaryadu Clerk, The Komarada Garllamudi

The Dharmavanth Junior College Vs Government of A.P.

Boyi Venkateswara Rao, Vs Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Controlling