Disposed

Gadepalli Udaya Bhaskhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC12 Jul 2016WP/22538/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of six writ petitions seeking a declaration that interference with petitioners' land possession without following Land Acquisition procedures was illegal. It directed respondents to follow due process if land is required for road or public purposes.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to follow due process of law if the lands of the petitioners are sought to be acquired for laying of a road or for any other public purpose.

Gadepalli Udaya Bhaskhar Vs The State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

W.P.Nos.22389, 22395, 22446, 22508, 22538 and 22552 of 2016

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

These writ petitions are filed seeking issuance 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 NGO’s 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 consequently sought a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ sites without following due process of law.

¶5

2. Heard Sri V. Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department (Andhra Pradesh), learned Government Pleader for Revenue and also Sri Ancha Panduranga Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent – Corporation.

¶6

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Ancha Panduranga Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent – Corporation, would submit that if the petitioners’ lands are required for laying of a road or for any other public purpose, certainly, the respondent – Corporation will follow due process of law.

¶7

4. In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to follow due process of law, if the lands of the petitioners are sought to be acquired for laying of a road or for any other public purpose. No order as to costs.

¶8

5. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶9

_____________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶10

12.07.2016. Msr

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶12

W.P.Nos.22389, 22395, 22446, 22508, 22538 and 22552

¶13

of 2016

¶14

12.07.2016 Msr

Gadepalli Udaya Bhaskhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gadepalli Udaya Bhaskhar v. The 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

Kola Hanumantha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Vasavi Minerals Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Smt. Padala Sri Lakshmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Sri Ganesh Mines and Minerals Vs The State of Telangana

G.Veeranna, Vs The State of Telangana

Kasse Santha Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh