This contempt case regarding the delay in initiating land acquisition proceedings was disposed of after the Court found that the GHMC had published the requisite notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, thereby complying with the earlier order.
Contempt case closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
Date:13.04.2010.
C.C.NO.270 OF 2010.
Between:
Badrivishal Pitti, died per L.Rs and others
..... PETITIONERS
AND
Samir Sharma and others
.....RESPONDENTS
ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of the order passed in W.P.No.3331 of 2000 dated 16.02.2009 whereunder the respondents were directed to initiate proceedings for acquisition of the western side of the petitioners’ premises as contemplated under Section 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 within a period of six (6) months.
2. In response to the notice ordered, the Assistant City Planner, Circle-X, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation filed counter affidavit stating as under:
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has placed before this Court a copy of the notification dated 27.03.2010, which was published in the Deccan Chronicle and Andhra Jyothi dailies dated 29.03.2010.
4. As the proceedings have already been initiated in compliance with the order of this Court, no further enquiry is necessary in this Contempt Case.
5. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed leaving it open to the petitioners to challenge the notification, if aggrieved, by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law.
_________
G. ROHINI, J
13th April 2010 AMD
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court is satisfied that the respondents initiated land acquisition proceedings in compliance with the earlier order.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Badrivishal Pitti
Samir Sharma
G. Rohini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
