This common judgment dismissed writ appeals challenging an order dismissing a petition against notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that jurisdiction is barred post-award.
Writ appeals dismissed. No costs.
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 THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.1259 OF 2011 AND WRIT APPEAL NO.1002 OF 2012
DATED:8.8.2012
W.A. NO.1259 OF 2011 Between: Bole Chinna Subba Rao … Appellant And The District Collector Guntur District, Guntur and others … Respondents W.A. (SR) No.143193 OF 2011 Stm. Budda Suseelamma (died) (Rep. by her legal representative B. Beeraiah) … Appellants And The District Collector Guntur District, Guntur and others … Respondents
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.1259 OF 2011 AND WRIT APPEAL NO.1002 OF 2012
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P. No.6690 of 2007 on 20.12.2012, writ petitioner Nos.1 and 3 filed W.A. (SR) No.143193 of 2011, whereas writ petitioner No.2 preferred W.A. No.1259 of 2011. As both the appeals are preferred against one order, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
The writ petition was filed to set aside the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by respondent No.1 – District Collector, vide his proceedings dt.24.10.2006, and for consequential directions. On a consideration of the matter, the Hon’ble Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, these writ appeals.
After publication of the Award, Writ Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Hence, the Hon’ble Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Further, it has been specifically recorded that the possession of the land in question has also been taken by the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, these writ appeals are filed.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
We do not find that there is any reason to interfere with the order so passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, since the issue raised in the
matter is settled by the Supreme Court in Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan[1] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that after passing of the Award in land acquisition matters, writ Court loses its jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Following the said judgment of the Supreme Court, we have also considered a similar issue in W.A. No.327 of 2012, dt.3.8.2012 and dismissed the appeal. The facts and circumstances in the present appeals are being identical to the said writ appeal, and the issue is covered by the above said judgment of the Supreme Court, we do not intend to pass any order in favour of the appellants – petitioners. We find no merit in these appeals.
The writ appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ
8.8.2012 bnr
[1] (2008) 4 SCC 695
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging notification under Section 4(1) after an award is passed in land acquisition.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. v. State of RajasthanFollowed¶14
(2008) 4 SCC 695 · Who else cites this
Bole Chinna Subba Rao
Stm. Budda Suseelamma
District Collector Guntur District
Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
