Writ petitions challenging land acquisition notifications on grounds of vagueness were allowed by quashing the notifications, relying on a prior decision invalidating similar notifications.
Quashing of impugned land acquisition notifications and allowance of writ petitions.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.10877, 10878, 20069 and 21720 OF 2005
Date:04.02.2011
Between:
M.Prabhakar Reddy and others .. Petitioners
And
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.10877, 10878, 20069 and 21720 OF 2005
COMMON ORDER:
All these writ petitions are filed by the owners of agricultural lands situated at Nadergul and Turkayamjal Villages of Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The challenge is to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity) proposing to acquire the petitioners land for public purpose to be ‘for development of township and future plans’. Inter alia, it is urged that the purpose is vague and therefore illegal.
Counsel for the petitioners, the Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition) and the Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, do not dispute that the similar notification for acquiring other lands has been invalidated by this Court in Gajjela Narasimha Reddy v. Collector, Ranga Reddy Distric t[1] .
The issues raised herein are similar and therefore the above mentioned judgment squarely covers this case. Following the same, these writ petitions are also allowed and the impugned notifications in these writ petitions are quashed. This order, however, shall not preclude the respondents from initiating the proceedings afresh in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
(V.V.S. RAO, J)
04.02.2011
KH
[1] 2008 (5) ALD 302
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the notification proposing land acquisition for an unspecified public purpose is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gajjela Narasimha Reddy v. Collector, Ranga Reddy DistrictDistinguished¶12
2008 (5) ALD 302
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Prabhakar Reddy and others
Government of Andhra Pradesh
V.V.S. Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
