Disposed

Konduru Venkata Purushottama Rao, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC4 Apr 2016WP/11088/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the respondent's action of marking his land for road widening without acquiring it or following due procedure. The Court held that without tax receipts, possession is established, and authorities cannot act without following statutory procedure. The writ was disposed of directing the Corporation not to interfere with possession except according to law.

What did the court decide?

The Eluru Municipal Corporation authorities are directed not to interfere with the petitioner's possession over the subject property except in accordance with the due procedure laid down by law.

Konduru Venkata Purushottama Rao, Vs State of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11088 OF 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Sri Naresh Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ancha Pandu Ranga Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Eluru Municipal Corporation.

¶5

The prayer of the petitioner in this case is as under:

¶6

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the Petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of 2^nd respondent in marking a portion of the petitioner's four shops structure and site out of 200 Sq.Yds., in Municipal Assessment Nos.1075005581 and 1075005582 western adjoining Main Bazaar and southern adjoining Canal Road in Nallamandu Street, Revenue Ward 5 of 2^nd respondent Municipal Corporation Limits for the purpose of road widening, without acquiring the same, by following any known procedure established by law, as illegal, irregular, irrational and violative of provisions of The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Act, 1955 and The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and offends articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent not to interfere with the petitioner's possession over said property in any manner, without following due procedure established by law and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶7

The property tax receipts filed by the petitioner evidence his possession over the subject property. In that view of the matter, it would not be open to the municipal authorities to proceed against the petitioner’s property without following the due procedure.

¶8

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the Eluru Municipal Corporation authorities not to interfere with the petitioner’s

¶9

possession over the subject property except in accordance with the due procedure laid down by law. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶10

____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 4^th April, 2016 IBL

Konduru Venkata Purushottama Rao, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Konduru Venkata Purushottama Rao, v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sayed Kaleema, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.v.S.R.K.Mohan, S/o Late Samineni Adinarayanarao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. N. Ailamma, Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Hashim Education Society (Regd. No.5025/1997), Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Yada Vinoda Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Rishoub Industry, Vs The State of Telangana