Allowed

Sri J.L.Narasimham, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC14 Nov 2013WP/17385/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the occupance of petitioners' plots by the Respondents for a government office. Ruling that plots were taken without acquiring land and alternative land was available, the court directed allotment of alternatives or return of the original plots within one month, initiating acquisition only if necessary.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to allot alternative plots within one month or return occupied plots and initiate acquisition if needed.

Sri J.L.Narasimham, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17385 of 2013

¶2

Date: 14.11.2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

Sri J.L.Narasimham and another. .. Petitioners and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents

¶5

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. K.L.B.Kumar Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 4: AGP for Home. Counsel for Respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 & 6: AGP for Revenue.

¶6

ORDER:

¶7

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4, in occupying Plot Nos.145 and 146, belonging to the petitioners, in Sy.No.91 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶8

The petitioners admittedly are the owners of the abovementioned two plots. It is also not in dispute that those two plots were handed over by the Revenue authorities to respondent No.4 for establishment of Cyberabad Commissionarate. When the petitioners have approached the revenue functionaries for allotment of alternative land, respondent No.3 has called for a report from respondent No.6. Accordingly respondent No.6 has submitted his report vide letter No.B/169/2012, dated 29.06.2012, wherein he has admitted that the petitioners’ two plots were handed over for construction of office of respondent No.4. Respondent No.6 also identified the alternative plots shown in schedules ‘A’ and ‘B’ situated in Sy.No.26 of Kancha Gachibowli, with each plot admeasuring 363 sq. yards. Even though the petitioners requested for allotment of the said plots, no action has been taken thereon. Therefore, they have filed the present writ petition.

¶9

In the separate counter affidavits filed by respondent Nos.4 and 6, the above facts have been specifically admitted. In the counter affidavit of respondent No.6, he has stated that the report submitted by his predecessor in office to respondent No.3, along with the representation of the petitioners, is under latter’s consideration and that necessary action will be taken upon the directions from respondent No.3.

¶10

From the above noted admitted facts, it is clear that the plots of the petitioners have been taken over without initiating the land acquisition proceedings. The petitioners are agreeable for accepting the alternative

¶11

plots, identified by respondent No.6, shown in schedules ‘A’ and ‘B’ of his report. Therefore, I do not find any justification for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not allotting those plots to the petitioners.

¶12

For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms:

¶13

(1) Respondent Nos.1 and 3 shall consider allotment of alternative plots to the petitioners in terms of the report, dated 29.06.2012, of respondent No.6, take appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioners within one month from the date of receipt of this order;

¶14

(2) If, for any reason, allotment of alternative plots is not possible, the respondents shall handover Plot Nos.145 and 146, belonging to the petitioners, back to them within the time stipulated in No.1 supra; and

¶15

(3) If, after such handing over of the said plots to the petitioners, the respondents feel that they are required for establishment of the office for respondent No.4, they shall initiate land acquisition proceedings.

¶16

As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.21112 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶17

_____________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶18

14^th November, 2013 v v

Sri J.L.Narasimham, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri J.L.Narasimham, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Miss Jayanthi Bisai Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

K. Malla Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Joseph Sriharsha Mary Indraja Educational Society Vs The National Council for Teacher Education

Smt. Zaheera Begum Vs The State Government of A.P.

K. Venkat Rao Vs The Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool.

Merugu Leelavathi w/o Mondaiah , Chinna Mondaiah, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.