The Hon'ble Court accepted the petitioners' request to withdraw Writ Petition No.33644 of 2011, filed to quash a land acquisition notification, and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
No substantive relief was granted as the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.33644 of 2011
Dated 28.12.2012
Between:
Vatsavai Gopala Narasaraju and others.
…Petitioners
And
The District Collector, Anantapur and others
…Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.V.Mahesh.
Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr. R. Raghunandan
Counsel for respondent No.2: G.P. for Energy
Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4: G.P. for Land Acquisition
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “..Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particular one in the NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the Government and the District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada in issuing Section 4(1) Notification vide G.O.RT.No.177, Energy (PR-IV) Department dated 19.11.2011 under Ref/G3/2813/2011, dated 1911-2011 seeking to acquire the land belonging to the petitioners specified in Schedule appended thereto as illegal and opposed to the procedure prescribed under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, as mala-fide and illegal and consequentially to direct the respondents to refrain from in any way taking any steps to seek to acquire the land of the petitioners for the purpose of establishing 764/400 KV Vemagiri GIS Pooling Station at Surampalem Village of Gandepalli Mandal, East Godavari District and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
At the hearing, Sri P.V.Mahesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, sought permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition. He also addressed letter, dated 27.12.2012, to the Registrar (Judicial) to that effect.
The request of the petitioner is accepted and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)
28.12.2012
v v
Vatsavai Gopala Narasaraju
The District Collector, Anantapur
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
