Dismissed

D.Srirama Chandra murthy v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC4 Feb 2013WP/26116/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the legality of a land acquisition notification and draft declaration for flood bank formation. With the petitioner's consent to participate in the award enquiry, the petition was disposed of without adjudicating merits, quashing an interim order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to participate in the award enquiry and claim compensation; writ petition disposed of as infructuous; interim order vacated.

D.Srirama Chandra murthy Vs State of A.P. — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26116 of 2011

¶2

Dated 0 4 th February, 2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

D.Srirama Chandra Murthy and others

¶5

…Petitioners

¶6

and

¶7

State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue and Land Acquisition Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.Rajkumar

¶10

Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

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

¶14

This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief:

¶15

“…to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in proceedings No.1514/2009, G1 dated 16.09.2009, published in Srikakulam District Gazette on 17.09.2009 and consequential Draft Declaration under Section

¶16

6 of the Land acquisition Act issued by the 2^nd Respondent in proceedings No.1514/2009, G1 dated 08.10.2009, published in Srikakulam District Gazette on 14.10.2009 in respect of the lands of the Petitioners to an extent of Ac.1.07 cents in Sy.Nos.259/3A, 2A, 9B, 10B, 260/3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 11A and 257/4A; Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.Nos.253/18A2, 253/18C and 253/20A2; Ac.0.31 cents in Sy.No.261/4B; Ac.0.16 cents in Sy.No.261/14B; Ac.0.33 cents in Sy.Nos.254/1A2, 254/1C, 253/16A2, 253/16C, 253/17A2 and 253/17C; Ac.0.34 cents in Sy.Nos.261/5B and 261/6B; Ac.0.39 cents in Sy.Nos.261/7B,

¶17

261/8B, 261/9B, 265/5B, 265/20A, 273/1B and 273/3B and Ac.0.56 cents in Sy.Nos.253/4A2, 253/4C and 253/19 respectively of Korada Village Hiramandalam Mandal, Srikakulam District for the purpose of formation of flood bank (Vamsadhara Pacakage.2) on river Vamsadhara as illegal, arbitrary, malafide and ultra vires the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and quash the same.”

¶18

After arguing the case, Sri P.Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, fairly submitted that his clients may be permitted to participate in the award enquiry.

¶19

In view of this submission of the learned counsel, the writ petition is disposed of without adjudicating on the merits of the case with liberty to the petitioners to participate in the award enquiry and claim compensation for the lands notified and also the trees, which were allegedly not notified.

¶20

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 19.09.2011, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.32225 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.3716 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶21

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶22

04^th February, 2013 VGB

D.Srirama Chandra murthy v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Srirama Chandra murthy v. State of A.P.

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

Kameswari Education Society Vs Governmement of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Ellapally Sathamma , a. Sattemma, Vs The District Collector

M/s. Vinayaka Agro industries Vs Union of lnida

V. Gopalakrishnan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dhandu Madhu Sudhan, Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Shaik Khadar Basha, S/ o. S. Hasim, Vs The Regional Passport Officer