Allowed

Manohar Cole v. District Collector

Telangana HC16 Nov 2016WP/25325/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the notification and declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, this Court found the District Collector failed to apply his mind while rejecting objections without reasons. Consequently, the order and declaration were set aside, leaving the matter open under the new 2013 Act. (14 words)

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 8.8.2008 rejecting objections is set aside; declaration dated 8.8.2008 is struck off.

Manohar Cole Vs District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

W.P.No.25325 of 2008

¶3

ORDER

¶4

In the present writ petition, the petitioners challenged the notification issued on 5.5.2008 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and declaration made on 8.8.2008 for acquiring the land to an extent of 14,799 square yards for the purpose of widening the road from Kadapa Government Hospital to NTR Circle (via Christain Lane) to a width of 50 feet. It is their case that pursuant to the notice issued under Section 5-A of the Act, they submitted their objections, but the same were rejected vide order dated 8.8.2008 passed by the 1^st respondentDistrict Collector, Kadapa.

¶5

A perusal of the impugned order dated 8.8.2008 shows that a tabular statement was prepared by the 1^st respondent, indicating ‘nature of objection’, ‘remarks of EE R&B, Kadapa’ and ‘remarks of the RDO, Kadapa’. Based on the remarks mentioned therein, the 1^st respondent rejected the objections of the petitioners without giving any reasons of his own.

¶6

While admitting the writ petition, this Court granted status quo on 19.11.2008 in WPMP No.33085 of 2008, as a result of which, no award was passed. In the meanwhile, Act 30 of 2013 came into force with effect from 1.1.2014.

¶7

Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents wherein they denied the allegation that during the course of conducting award enquiry, the Land acquisition Officer is not present.

¶8

This Court is not satisfied with the manner of disposal of objections by the 1^st respondent, without applying his mind.

¶9

In view of the same, the impugned order dated 8.8.2008 passed by the 1^st respondent-District Collector, Kadapa, rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners, is set aside. In consequence thereof, declaration made on 8.8.2008 under Section 6 of the Act also should go. In view of coming into force of the new Act 30 of 2013, it is left open to the authorities to issue fresh notification under the provisions of the new Act and take appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law.

¶10

Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶11

___________________________________ JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶12

16^th November, 2016 rkk

Manohar Cole v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Cole v. District Collector

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

N.Bharatha Lakshmi, Vs The Kakatiya Urban Development Authority

Ryali Nageshwar Rao Vs The Municipal Corporation of Kakinada

Style lamp Industries, Komarada Road, Rayalam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Vegesana Ranga Raju, Vs The Government of A.P. Municipal Administration and Urban

Chintalapudi Narasimha Murthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammed Abdul Khader, Vs The Land Acquisition Officer