Partly allowed

Atukuri Vithal Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC13 Feb 2013WP/4351/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed the land acquisition notification and declaration insofar as it pertained to the petitioners' lands, directing the respondents to conduct an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, following a precedent.

What did the court decide?

Declaration dated 20.11.2012 set aside; direction to invite objections and conduct Section 5-A enquiry.

Atukuri Vithal Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.4351 of 2013

¶3

Date: February 13, 2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

1. Atukuri Vithal Rao & 17 others. … Petitioners

¶6

and

¶7

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Roads and Buildings Department, Hyderabad & 5 others. … Respondents

¶8

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.4351 of 2013

¶11

O R D E R:

¶12

The petitioners are aggrieved by the Notification dated 07.09.2012 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘Act of 1894’) and the Declaration dated 20.11.2012 under Section 6 of the said Act, insofar as it pertains to their lands in Door Nos.646/B, 120/A & 120/B, 120/A & 120/B, 120/A & 120/B, 901, 901, 901, 901, 646/B, 120/A & 120/B, 120/A & 120/B, 646/B, 496/A, 646/B, 646/B, 120/A & 120/B and 122/1-C of Piduguralla Municipal limits, Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur District.

¶13

2. The main ground of challenge is that the acquisition has been resorted to for the purpose of laying a road by invoking the urgency provision and dispensing with an enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act of 1894.

¶14

3. The matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in W.P. Nos.29401 and 39389 of 2012. A copy of the

¶15

common order dated 26.12.2012 passed therein is placed on record and reflects that those two writ petitions also were filed in the context of the very same notification and declaration which are under challenge presently. This Court found that dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 was not proper and appropriate on the given facts. The Declaration dated 20.11.2012 under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was accordingly quashed and the respondents were directed to hold an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 and pass appropriate orders on the objections filed by the petitioners therein before proceeding further with the acquisition proceedings.

¶16

4. In the light of the aforestated judgment and for reasons alike, this writ petition is also amenable to disposal granting similar relief.

¶17

5. The Declaration dated 20.11.2012 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 insofar as it pertains to the petitioners’ lands is accordingly set aside. The respondents shall invite objections from the petitioners and conduct an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 and pass appropriate orders thereon. Depending upon the outcome of the Section 5-A enquiry, further steps may be initiated by the authorities.

¶18

6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. W.P.M.P. No.5423 of 2013 shall stand dismissed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶19

__________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶20

Date: February 13, 2013. Note:

¶21

Issue C.C. in two days. //B.O.// BSB

¶22

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.4351 of 2013

¶24

Date: February 13, 2013

¶25

BSB

Atukuri Vithal Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atukuri Vithal Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sk. John Babu, Vs Sk.Meera

Vikas Chit Funds, Vs Venugopal Reddy

Sri Chintha Venkata Sivayya, Vs The a.P.Co.operative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd.

Singamala Sujatha Kumar Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd. Samiuddin Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Anica Labs Private Umited Vs -