Disposed

Smt. Savithri Devi, v. The State of Telangana, Municipal Administration and

Telangana HC1 Nov 2017WP/36505/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addressed a writ petition challenging threats to forcibly dispossess petitioners for road widening under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The court restrained respondents from dispossessing the petitioners without following due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents not to dispossess petitioners without following the due process of law.

Smt. Savithri Devi, Vs The State of Telangana, Municipal… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.36505 OF 2017

¶2

O R D E R :

¶3

This petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in threatening the petitioners to give consent to take possession of their affected lands for proposed 60 meters road widening from Balanagar road to Narsapur X road (flyover under SRDP), pursuant to common consent letters vide Lr.No.L-104/RW(SRDP)/ACP/C-24/GHMC/2017, dated

¶4

16.10.2017 of the 2^nd respondent, otherwise the petitioners will be forcibly dispossessed with Police force without initiating the land acquisition proceedings by publishing a Notification under Sec.11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ( for short ‘the Act’) , as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay or tender payment for the damages caused to the buildings and determine the value of the same and to pay the compensation before taking possession of the affected land including structures attached to the said land.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners who submits that the respondent authorities are trying to dispossess the petitioners without following due process of law.

¶6

Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition on instructions submits that notifications under Section 11 of the Act

¶7

¶8

have been sent for approval; that they will follow due process of law; and that notifications will be published.

¶9

Heard Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners without following due process of law.

¶11

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶12

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶13

in the writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶14

_____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 01.11.2017 t k.

Smt. Savithri Devi, v. The State of Telangana, Municipal Administration and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savithri Devi, v. The State of Telangana, Municipal Administration and

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

Smt. Meenal Agarwal, Vs The State of Telangana

G.v.R.Nageshwar Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Miss Vasa Mounica D/o. Vasa Srinivas, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep, by its Principal Secretary

Shiva Metal Works Vs Ap Industrial Infrastructural Corporation Ltd.

Ch.Sarojinamma, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Nyavanandi Konaiah, Vs The State of Telangana.