Dismissed

Smt.Kolli Vani v. The District Collector

Telangana HC26 Apr 2011WP/27630/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous because the petitioners' objections were rejected by respondents in a subsequent pending petition, causing the issue to cease survival for adjudication. The interim order and related miscellaneous petitions were also disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous with liberty to pursue W.P.No.17177 of 2009; interim orders vacated; related MPCs and V.MPs disposed as infructuous.

Smt.Kolli Vani Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.27630 of 2008

¶2

Date:26.04.2011

¶3

Between:

¶4

Smt.Kolli Vani and others

¶5

..... Petitioners

¶6

AND

¶7

The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and another .....Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri C.Raghu Counsel for Respondents: GP for Land Acquisition

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief:

¶13

“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the impugned notification Rc.G4.3840/2008 issued by the 1^st respondent under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published in Saakshi Newspaper without date in relation to the properties of the petitioners admeasuring Acs.26.86 cents in Pamarru Village, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and consequently set aside the same.”

¶14

At the hearing, Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that this writ petition was filed questioning the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and that during the pendency of the same, the respondents have rejected the petitioners’ objections under Section 5-A of the Act, questioning which, his clients have filed W.P.No.17177 of 2009. He has therefore submitted that in view of this subsequent development, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication on merits.

¶15

Having regard to this submission, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous with liberty to the petitioners to pursue W.P.No.17177 of 2009. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 19.12.2008, granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.36201 of 2008 shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.36201 of 2008 and W.V.M.P.No.2756 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous.

¶16

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26^th April, 2011 VGB

Smt.Kolli Vani v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Kolli Vani v. The District Collector

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

D.Sarala Vs The District Collector

Dammuluri Appala Raju, Vs Sri Maripalli Appa Rao

Molli Apparao, Vs Kanddepalli Adinarayana

Peddageliche Rammohan Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pydi Varahalamma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Asadulla, Vs Vice Chancellore