In a petition under Article 226 concerning land acquisition where respondents attempted to dispossess the petitioner, the High Court directed that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question in the meanwhile.
An order directing that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY , THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE :PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WP .NO:5516 of 2012
Between:
G. Someshwar Rao S/o. Late Ramachander Rao
..... Petitioner
AND
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents without following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and there by in pursuance of the proceedings vide Form No. III dated 24-09-2011 making attempts to dispossess the petitioner from the land to an extents of shown in below table
Survey Number Description Extent Required Reputed Owner
| 36/1B Dry Land | 3-21 |
|---|---|
| 36/2B -do- | 1-33 |
| 38/2 -do- | 0-08 |
| 40/3 -do- | 0-29 Gadde Someswara |
| s/o.Ramachandrarao | |
| 44/1C -do- | 1-54 |
situated at Tadvuadai (V) of Jangareddygudem (M), West Godavari District is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land as stated above;
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of SRI NARAM NAGESWARA RAO Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Govt. Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition) for the respondents, the Court made the following:
ORDER: “ Post on 13-03-2012.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question.”
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
HIGH COURT
LNR.J
DATED 1-03-2012
POST ON 13-03-2012
ORDER
W.P.NO. 5516 OF 2012
DIRECTION
Bsr Dt. 2-3-2012 HIGH COURT
LNR.J
DATED 1-03-2012
POST ON 13-03-2012
ORDER
W.P.NO. 5516 OF 2012
DIRECTION
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in possession of the land pending disposal of the writ petition filed under Article 226.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
G. Someshwar Rao
The Special Collector, Indirasagar Project
The Special Deputy Collector, RMC Unit - I
The Tahsildar Jangareddygudem
L. Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
