Dismissed

Laminated Packing Private Ltd., v. The Greater Hyderabad Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC1 Jun 2010WP/12206/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged proceedings requiring land for Bus Rapid Transit project. Court directed respondent not to interfere with possession or demolish structures except per statutory acquisition procedure.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to interfere with petitioner's possession or demolish structures without following Sections 146 and 147 of the Act.

Laminated Packing Private Ltd., Vs The Greater Hyderabad… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.12206 of 2010

¶3

1^st June 2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

Laminated Packings Private Limited

¶6

… PETITIONER(S)

¶7

and

¶8

The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhpatnam, rep. by its Commissioner

¶9

… RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12206 of 2010

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Heard Sri K.S.R.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. At their request the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶13

The petitioner is a private limited company. It carries on business on an extent of 4122.2 Sq. yards of land situated on the highway between Visakhapanam and Aruku. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents vide proceedings dated 12.05.2010 informed them that the Corporation intended to develop the project called “Bus Rapid Transit System” for which an extent of 141.65 sq. meters of the petitioners land was required. The petitioner’s cooperation was sought and they were informed that the respondents would issue TDR Certificate for the land affected and that the structural compensation would be paid according to the rules in force. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 12.05.2010. It is their specific case that the only mode by which the petitioner can be deprived of their land is on following the procedure prescribed under Sections 146 and 147 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short – ‘the Act’).

¶14

Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, submits that the impugned proceedings only sought the petitioner’s cooperation in this regard and

¶15

in case the petitioner is not inclined, the Corporation would follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 146 and 147 of the Act before depriving the petitioner of the land in question.

¶16

I consider it appropriate in such circumstances to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the land in question in any manner including not to demolish the structures thereon except in accordance with Sections 146 and 147 of the Act.

¶17

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

¶18

_____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J

¶19

1^st June 2010 CVRK

¶20

Note: Issue copy within one week.

¶21

B/o CVRK

Laminated Packing Private Ltd., v. The Greater Hyderabad Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laminated Packing Private Ltd., v. The Greater Hyderabad Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

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

Anapu Padma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Bethanaboyina Venkataramaiah, Vs Sri Poluri Surendra Babu, Managing Trustee

K.Shameer Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Abeda Begum Saheba Vs Greater Hydrebad Municipal Coproration

Sri. M. Satyanarayana Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Shaheda Begum, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation