Disposed

Gundala Sarojanamma, v. The National High Way Authority of India

Telangana HC7 Sept 2016WP/30188/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners were aggrieved by a notice for eviction from highway land in Nellore District. Counsel assured the court that representations filed by the petitioners would be considered and action taken as per law, with possession remaining undisturbed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider representations within four weeks and communicate decision within one week; possession not to be disturbed.

Gundala Sarojanamma, Vs The National High… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

¶2

Writ Petition No.30188 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Vide present writ petition, the petitioners seek a direction, thereby directing the respondents not to resort to evict the petitioners from the land owned by them in Sy.No.109 of Nellorepalem Village, Atmakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, without following due process of law.

¶5

The present writ petition is filed, the petitioners being aggrieved by the notice dated 16.05.2016, whereby the petitioners were directed to vacate the land mentioned above, failing which, the petitioners shall be liable to penalty and summarily eviction from the afore mentioned Highway land under sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Control of National Highway (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after receiving aforesaid notice, the petitioners made representation dated 19.05.2016 to the respondents, whereby they stated that the aforesaid land was purchased by them from Cherukuru Venkateswarlu and Cherukuru Srinivasulu, Sons of Cherukuru Pulla and established lorry weighbridge in the year 1999 after obtaining all the required permissions and enjoying the said property continuously. However, till date, no communication received from the respondents.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly stated that the notice in question was not issued in favour of the petitioners, even though the land mentioned in the notice belong to the petitioners and have been residing therein since the date of their purchase in the year 1999.

¶8

¶9

Notice issued to the respondents. Learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings accepted the notice on behalf of the respondents 3 to 5 and Sri S.S.Varma, learned standing counsel for National Highways accepted the notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and they assured this court that further action as per law will be taken after considering the representation dated 19.05.2016 filed by the petitioners.

¶10

In view of the averments made in the writ petition and the assurance given by the learned counsel for the respondents, I hereby direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 19.05.2016 of the petitioners, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the decision taken thereon shall be communicated to the petitioners within one week thereafter. Till then, possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed.

¶11

In view of the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶12

No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this petition, shall stand closed.

¶13

_____________________ SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J

¶14

Date: 07.09.2016 BSS

¶15

¶16

HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

¶17

¶18

Writ Petition No.30188 of 2016

¶19

Date: 07.09.2016

¶20

BSS

Gundala Sarojanamma, v. The National High Way Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gundala Sarojanamma, v. The National High Way Authority of India

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

Midhani Employees Union Vs The Union of India

G. Krishnanand Vs State Bank of India

M/s.Naskon Soft Solutions Private Limited, Vs Axis Bank Limited

M.A. Aziz, Vs the State of Telangana

Visakhapatnam Cargo Handling Private Workers Vs The Union of India

N.Nagaraju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh