Dismissed

Palagiri Ramalakshumma, v. The District Collector, Kadapa District

Telangana HC18 Dec 2009WP/12241/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ of Mandamus restraining the District Collector and others from digging a canal on their land without invoking Land Acquisition Act proceedings, alleging violation of Article 300-A. The court dismissed the petition as no further orders were needed against the respondents' admission that no work had started.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed; no order as to costs. No orders were passed for the present.

Palagiri Ramalakshumma, Vs The District Collector… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT:

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.12241 of 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

Palagiri Ramalakshumma and three others

¶8

..... PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

The District Collector, Kadapa District, Kadapa and three others

¶11

..... RESPONDENTS

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard the counsel.

¶14

2. The writ petition is filed praying for the relief of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in digging the canal in Survey No.64/A an extent of Ac.0.39 cents, Sy.No.163/A an extent of Ac.0-19 cents, Sy.No.68/3F an extent of Ac.0.26 cents, Sy.No.69/5 an extent of Ac.0.93 cents and in Sy.No.163 an extent of Ac.0.22 cents of Gangavaram village, Kamapuram Mandal, Kadapa District, without invoking the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as being violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently restraining the respondents from illegally taking possession of the petitioners’ land without following due process of law and without invoking the Land Acquisition proceedings and pass such other suitable orders.

¶15

3. A counter affidavit had been filed by the first respondent. In para No.3 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Revenue Department had not initiated any land acquisition proceedings for digging a canal in the lands of the petitioners. The Mandal Development Officer, Kamalapuram Mandal – second respondent had also reported that they will not start any work without any Land Acquisition proceedings and also they have not taken any measurements for digging the canal till today.

¶16

4. In the light of the specific stand taken by the respondents, the version of the petitioners in this regard is not correct. It is needless to say that if the respondents are interested in doing so, they are bound to follow the due process of law.

¶17

5. However, in the light of the specific stand taken in para No.3 of the counter-affidavit, no further orders need be passed for the present.

¶18

5. The writ petition is accordingly closed. No order as to costs.

¶19

P.S. NARAYANA, J

¶20

December 18, 2009. Pn

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.12241 of 2009

¶23

December 18, 2009

Palagiri Ramalakshumma, v. The District Collector, Kadapa District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palagiri Ramalakshumma, v. The District Collector, Kadapa 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

Vemuri Jhansi, Vs The District Co-operative Officer Gudivawada

K.Ravindra REddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of

M.Vnekat Reddy Vs The Shamshabad Grampanchayat

State Bank of India, Varadaiahpalem Branch, Vs The District Collector, Chittoor

Manimeshwaram Village, Rep by its Sarpanch Y.K. Chintaiah, Vs The District Collector

Smt.Chivukula Jayalakshmi Vs The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd.