Disposed

Kolusu Venkata Krishna rao v. The District Collector-Cum-District Magistrate

Telangana HC22 Jan 2016WP/21819/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of writ petitions and appeals challenging land acquisition proceedings for the Polavaram Project. Petitioners allegedly consented to acquisition, but disputes remained regarding market value. The court directed authorities to complete proceedings within six months or initiate fresh ones if proceedings lapsed, and dismissed the writ challenges.

What did the court decide?

Directed authorities to complete acquisition proceedings within six months or initiate fresh proceedings if lapsed; dismissed writ challenges.

Kolusu Venkata Krishna rao Vs The District… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

WRIT APPEAL Nos.275, 286 & 291 of 2009, WRIT PETITION Nos.826, 8268, 8862, 21819 and 26590 of 2006, 27352 of 2007, 10549 of 2008, and 22200 of 2009.

¶3

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy)

¶4

Writ Petition Nos. 826, 8268, 8862, 21819 and 26590 of 2006, 27352 of 2007, 10549 of 2008, and 22200 of 2009 are filed questioning the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of acquisition of lands belonging to the petitioners for right main canal of Polavaram Project.

¶5

Writ Appeal Nos.275, 286 and 291 of 2009 are filed against interim orders passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.21819, 26590 and 8268 of 2006 respectively.

¶6

When the writ appeals were listed for hearing, at the request of the parties, the same were tagged with the aforesaid writ petitions.

¶7

During the course of hearing, Sri D. Srinivas, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, brought to the notice of this Court that all the petitioners in the writ petitions have consented for acquisition, and as such, the subject matter of the writ petitions has become infructuous.

¶8

On the other hand, Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel

¶9

appearing for the writ petitioners, submitted that some of the claimants are not agreeing for the market value of the acquired lands, as offered towards the compensation for acquisition, having consented for acquisition of lands.

¶10

As much as it is not in dispute that all the petitioners in the writ petitions have consented for acquisition, no directions can be granted as prayed for. At the same time, if any of the claimants are not agreeing for the market value proposed, the authorities are directed to complete the acquisition proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass award in accordance with law. If acquisition proceedings are lapsed in any of the cases, the authorities are directed to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings in such cases as expeditiously as possible.

¶11

Subject to the above directions, these writ appeals and writ petitions are disposed of.

¶12

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶13

____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶14

________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶15

22.01.2016

¶16

v v

Kolusu Venkata Krishna rao v. The District Collector-Cum-District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kolusu Venkata Krishna rao v. The District Collector-Cum-District Magistrate

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

Syed Moizullah Quadri, Vs The Special Court under A.P .Land Grabbing Prohibition

Unnava Bulleiah, Son of Unnava Seetharamaiah Vs M/S Uco Bank

Sri Rama Enterprises Vs The Authorized Officer

Kollipalli Vishnuvardhnarao Vs Union of India, represented by its Secretary to

The District Collector-Cum-District Magistrate Vs Kalapala Jagan Mohana Rao

The District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Vs Devi Reddy Rajasekhara Reddy, s/o Veera Reddy