Allowed

K. Laxmipathi Raju v. Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority

Telangana HC22 Sept 2014WP/27641/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge disposed of a writ petition filed by land owners against the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority. The Court restrained the respondent from interfering with the petitioners' land unless done in accordance with law, noting the respondent's inaction over seven years.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed not to interfere with the petitioners' land except in accordance with law; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

K. Laxmipathi Raju Vs Visakhapatnam Urban Development… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.27641 of 2007

¶3

Date: September 22, 2014

¶4

Between:

¶5

1. K. Laxmipathi Raju & others. … Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, rep. by its Vice Chairman, VUDA Building, Visakhapatnam. … Respondent

¶8

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.27641 of 2007

¶11

O R D E R:

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondent.

¶13

2. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the joint owners of Ac.0.41 ½ cents of land in Survey No.39/5 of Nerellavalasa Village, Bheemili Mandal, Visakhapatnam, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 11.05.1990. Similarly, the 3^rd petitioner is the owner of 410 square yards of land in Survey No.39/5 of the same village having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 13.06.2007. They wanted to develop the property and have been raising fruit bearing trees such as Cashew etc. The Revenue Authorities have also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour. While so, the respondent officials came to the land of the petitioners on 19.12.2007 and started breaking the fencing and cutting down the trees in order to lay a road across

¶14

their lands. The petitioners gave a police complaint in Bheemili Police Station at about 2.30 p.m. But the police returned the complaint stating that it is a civil dispute and advised them to approach civil Court. The petitioners got issued a lawyer’s notice on 20.12.2007 demanding the respondent to indicate their right to enter upon their lands. Challenging the high handed action of the respondent, the present writ petition was filed.

¶15

3. Even after seven years, the respondent did not choose to file a counter-affidavit.

¶16

4. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent not to interfere with the land of the petitioners except in accordance with law if they want to take any part of their land. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No costs.

¶17

________________________________ A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: September 22, 2014 BSB

¶18

58 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.27641 of 2007

¶20

Date: September 22, 2014

¶21

BSB

K. Laxmipathi Raju v. Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Laxmipathi Raju v. Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. a. Manju Vani, Vs The Principal Secretary, Home Department

P.C.Solomon Raju Vs The Govt of a.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary

Harijan Fishermen Mutually Aided Co.operative Vs Commissioner and Director of

C. Triveni, Vs Hyderabad Metropalitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Pedabaliyarasimhuni Srinivas Vs The Election Officer and Commissioner, Salur

Smt. U. Latha Rao, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation