Allowed

N.Dhanalakshmi, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC20 Jan 2011WP/15372/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, by an oral order, allowed a writ petition challenging a District Collector’s rejection of objection statements under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Relying on admitted irregularities where objections were not properly considered before issuing a Section 6 declaration, the set aside the impugned order and directed a fresh enquiry.

What did the court decide?

The impugned rejection order dated 25.06.2008 is set aside; respondent No.2 is directed to conduct a fresh enquiry under Section 5-A and pass appropriate orders.

N.Dhanalakshmi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

W.P. No. 15372 of 2008

¶3

Oral order:

¶4

Questioning the proceedings dated 25.06.2008, issued by respondent No.1, namely the District Collector, West Godavari, rejecting the objection statement filed by the petitioners during enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

¶5

The respondents sought to acquire the land of the petitioners, and for that purpose, they issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Pursuant thereto, the petitioners state that respondent No.2 issued notice dated 12.10.2007 in Form-3 under Section 5-A of the Act, calling upon them to attend for enquiry, and in response thereto, the petitioners attended the enquiry on 05.11.2007 and submitted their objection statement. While so, it is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.2 without passing any orders on their objections, issued notice dated 17.11.2007 under

¶6

Sections 9(3) and (10) of the Act, calling upon the petitioners to appear in person or through authorized agent on 06.12.2007, and submit their objections, if any, with respect to the compensation to be paid. At that point of time, the petitioners state that questioning the action of the respondents in not furnishing copy of the orders passed on their objection, filed writ petition in W.P. No. 25950 of 2007, and pursuant to the order dated 06.12.2007, passed therein, the petitioners state that respondent No.2 furnished copy of the proceedings dated 25.06.2008. As respondent No.2 did not conduct the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act properly, and merely rejected the objection statement filed by the petitioners, and that too after they approached this Court, the petitioners filed the present writ petition, questioning the rejection proceedings dated 25.06.2008.

¶7

The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing on behalf of the respondents fairly admitted that respondent No.2 has committed irregularities in the acquisition of the land, in that he has not conducted enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act properly and without considering the objection statement filed by the petitioners, issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act, and rejected the objections filed by the petitioners, much subsequent to issuance of

¶8

notices under

¶9

Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act.

¶10

In view of the above admitted stand taken by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing on behalf of the respondents, the impugned rejection order dated 25.06.2008 is set aside. Consequently, respondent No.2 is directed to initiate fresh steps for conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act by issuing notices to the petitioners, and after considering the objections, if any, to be filed by them, pass appropriate orders, and then proceed further in the matter.

¶11

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs.

¶12

__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶13

Dated: 20^th January, 2011 KSR

N.Dhanalakshmi, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Dhanalakshmi, v. State 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

Smt. T. Revathi, Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

Shaik Mustafa Vs The District Registrar

Mandem Saifulla Vs The District Collector

Dr.R.Adi Reddy, Vs Kakatiya University

M. Shyam Sunder Rao Vs The Commissioner of Collegiate Education

K. Rajendra Prasad, Vs The Management of St.Marys Model High School