Meka Koti Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court disposed of writ petitions challenging a preliminary land acquisition notification. It observed that petitioners have an opportunity under Section 15 of the RFR Act, 2013, to raise objections. The petitions were kept open for a stipulated period to file objections, and status quo of possession was maintained.
What did the court decide?
Petitions kept open to file objections under Section 15 of RFR Act, 2013; status quo of possession maintained; miscellaneous petitions closed.
What the court decided
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI
WRIT PETITION Nos.14516, 14518, 14525 and 14526 OF 2017
COMMON ORDER:
Since the Writ Petitioners in all these Writ Petitions share the common grievance, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions by way of this common order.
- Heard Sri P.Sudhakara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue (LA) for respondents 1, 4 to 6, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation for respondent No.2 and Sri D.Ramesh, learned Special
Government Pleader for respondent No.3.
- Heard and perused the material available on record.
- A preliminary notification, issued by the 4th respondent, vide Rc.No.131/2016-G1, dated 11.04.2017, under Section 11 (1) of Act 30 of 2013, proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners herein, is under challenge in these writ petitions.
- According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent authorities have acted in-contravention of the provisions of Sections 8 and 10 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Rules 4 (2) (c) and 8 (3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Social Impact Assessment) Rules, 2014, notified by G.S.R.574 (E), dated 08.08.2014.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the RFR Act, 2013, proposing land acquisition was lawful.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to object to the proposed acquisition under Section 15 of the RFR Act, 2013, before quashing the notification.
Whether the status quo of possession should be maintained while objections are considered.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioners
- respondent
Respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Coram
A.V. SIESA SAI
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · April
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP/14525/2017
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court