Dismissed

Gulbarga Nyamathullah alias Nyamathullah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Nov 2018WP/40035/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court examined a writ petition alleging the forcible takeover of petitioner's land without due process for constructing a 33 KV Sub-station. The court found no evidence of proposed acquisition for the specific land mentioned, disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition is disposed of; due process shall be followed if the petitioner's land is sought for acquisition in future.

Gulbarga Nyamathullah alias Nyamathullah Vs The State of… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.40035 OF 2018

¶3

Date: 16.11.2018

¶4

Between:

¶5

Gulbarga Nyamathullah @ Nyamathullah, s/o. Rahamatullah, Aged about 90 years, Occu: Agrl., r/o. H.No.4-5-12, Dhoolpet, Narayanpet, Mahabub Nagar district, Telangana State.

¶6

…..Petitioner

¶7

and

¶8

The State of Telangana, rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Land Acquisition & Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO.40035 OF 2018

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

Petitioner claims to be the owner of land to an extent of Ac.04.04 guntas in Sy.No.373 of Singaram village of Narayanpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar district. Petitioner alleges that respondents are forcibly taking possession of his land for construction of 33 KV Sub-station without following due process.

¶15

When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Government Pleader produced the photocopy of letter dated 14.11.2018 addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer to him. Reading of paragraph-3 of the said letter would show that no part of land in survey number mentioned in the writ petition is proposed and acquired by the respondents for construction of 33 KV Sub-station. According to this paragraph, land to an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.31 of Kourampally village of Narayanpet Mandal was proposed for the said purpose out of the land to an extent of Ac.3.18 guntas in Sy.No.31 classified as Government land. According to learned standing counsel representing the responding-Corporation possession was already given to them and construction work is in progress.

¶16

In view of categorical statement of learned Government Pleader as well as learned standing counsel, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is not valid and Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. However, if the land of petitioner in Sy.No.373 in Singaram village is sought for acquisition, due process shall be followed. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

¶17

___________________________ Date: 16.11.2018 JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO kkm

¶18

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO.40035 OF 2018

¶20

Date: 16.11.2018

¶21

kkm

Gulbarga Nyamathullah alias Nyamathullah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulbarga Nyamathullah alias Nyamathullah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.D., M/S Dora Plastics, Tirupathi Vs Chairman, a.P.E.R.C., Hyd and 2 Ot

M/S. Jagadheesh Food Packs (P). Ltd, Tirupathi Vs Chairman Aperc, Hyd and 2 Ot

Kura Prabhakar Vs Executive Engineer

Narra Balamani , Sudha Vs The State of Telangana

S.V. Srinivasulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Uppala Kanakamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh