Disposed

Javaji Narasaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC5 Jul 2016WP/21785/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order disposing of multiple writ petitions. The High Court directed the 2nd respondent not to take coercive steps against disputed properties without following due process of law, without going into merits.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 2nd respondent not to take any coercive steps against the property in dispute without following due process of law.

Javaji Narasaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.21703, 21704, 21705, 21706, 21708, 21728, 21737, 21764, 21772 and 21785 OF 2016

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department (Andhra Pradesh), learned Government Pleader for Revenue and also Sri Ancha Pandu Ranga Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondentCorporation. With consent of the counsel appearing for both sides, all the writ petitions is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶5

2. These Writ Petitions are filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of various extents of the petitioners’ sites in Sy.Nos.2168 to 2170, 2184 to 2189, 2190 and 2197/3 situated at NGOs Colony, Kothur Village, Nellore Bit-I, Nellore Municipal Corporation limits, SPSR Nellore District without initiating any proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Sections 145 to 147 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and also offends Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently, to direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of petitioners’ site without following due process of law.

¶6

3. Though various grounds are raised in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners restricts his prayer seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the property in

¶7

dispute without following due process of law.

¶8

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that no action shall be initiated by the respondents without following due process of law.

¶9

5. Having regard to the submissions made, and without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent not to take any coercive steps against the property in dispute without following due process of law. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

_______________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶11

Date:05.07.2016 INL

Javaji Narasaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javaji Narasaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary

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

V.Lakshmi Narayana Vs K.Prabhakar Reddy

Angadi Pitchaiah, Vs State of Aandhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

Jadav Murahari Vs The STate of Telangana

Marathu Madhavi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal

Sri Y.S.P Murthy, Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

M. Radhakrishna, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary