This judgment disposes of a writ petition by relying on a preceding order from W.P.No.35248 of 2012 which declared that forceful dispossession without due process was illegal. The petitioner's petition is closed in view of the earlier ruling.
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 AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
WRIT PETITION No.25969 of 2012
Between: Nalam Venkata Subba Rao and others.
…Petitioners and
| State of Andhra Pradesh and others. | ... Respond |
|---|---|
| DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:04.08 | .2015 |
| SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: | |
| THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJAS | HEKER REDDY |
| 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? |
Yes/No |
| 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? |
Yes/No |
| 3. Whether his Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? |
Yes/No |
| THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJAS | HEKER REDDY |
... Respondents
WRIT PETITION No.25969 of 2012
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned notices as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, to direct the respondents not to proceed further pursuant to the said notices.
Representation is made on behalf of petitioners’ counsel that he became Government Pleader and informed party to engage another counsel.
Heard Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for respondents 1 and 2, Smt K.Mani Deepika for respondent No.3 and Sri Nimmagadda Venkateswarlu for respondent No.4.
Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for respondent Nso.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 stated that the lis involved in this writ petition is covered by order of this Court, dated 15.11.2012, in W.P.No.35248 of 2012. Operative portion of the said order reads as follows:
“If the owner of a property situate in a Municipal area does not give his consent or agree for the local body to take possession of a portion of his property, respondent No.4 will have to necessarily acquire the land and or structure standing thereon and then alone take possession thereof. Therefore, the 4th respondent without following this process of law will not dispossess the writ petitioner forcefully and seek his consent coercively.
With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.”
In view of the above, the 4th respondent shall not dispossess the writ petitioners forcefully without following the due process of law or obtained consent forcibly. However, if the writ petitioners give their consent for handing over the land, the same can be accepted.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall also stand closed.
___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J AUGUST 04, 2015 YVL
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.25969 of 2012
Dt: 04.08.2015
YVL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition regarding arbitrary issuance of notices for dispossession was already sub judice in W.P.No.35248 of 2012 rendering this petition redundant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Order dated 15.11.2012Referred¶14
W.P.No.35248 of 2012
Nalam Venkata Subba Rao
State of Andhra Pradesh
A. Rajasheker Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
