Disposed

Ch. Yadaiah v. The state of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Feb 2019WP/2608/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed respondents to consider petitioner's representations regarding alleged excess land acquisition of Sy.No.640 for road widening, verified land acquisition proceedings, and issued notice to petitioner within twelve weeks, then disposed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to consider representations; Special Deputy Collector to verify acquisition and take steps if excess acquired; petitioner to be issued notice.

Ch. Yadaiah Vs The state of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No. 2608 of 2019

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents 1 to 5.

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondents 3 to 5 in not recording the actual extent of land acquired by them in Sy.No.640 situated at Nakrekal Revenue Village, as illegal and arbitrary, and to direct respondents 1 to 5 to pay compensation for the excess land acquired by them.

¶5

The petitioner asserts that he is the owner of lands to an extent of Ac.1-02 gts in Sy.No.639 and Ac.0.39 and Ac.0.06 gts, total Acs.1-05 gts, in Sy.No.640, situated at Nakrekal Village and Mandal, Nalgonda, and that though the respondents had acquired the land to an extent of Ac.0-39 gts in Sy.No.640 for the purpose of road widening, they have shown on paper only an extent of Ac.0.17 gts out of Ac.0-39 gts and paid compensation for the same. The petitioner made several requests for grant of compensation to the balance extent of land, which was actually acquired, and also representations on 14.09.2018 to the 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer and on 05.11.2018 to the 2^nd respondent-District Collector, but the respondents have not considered the same.

¶6

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents are directed to consider the aforesaid representations

¶7

CKR, J W.P.No.2608 of 2019

¶8

¶9

alleged to have been made by the petitioner, and after considering those representations, the 4^th respondent-Special Deputy Collector, shall verify the land acquisition proceedings and if the excess land was acquired or utilised for the purpose of road widening, necessary steps would be taken. It is needless to mention that the petitioner may be issued notice calling upon him to establish his allegations. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10

Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶11

________________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
12 th February, 2019
sj

Ch. Yadaiah v. The state of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Yadaiah 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

Badavath Rambabu Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.Svr Metal Industries, Vs State of Telangana

M/s. Sharada Agro Industries Vs The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

Sri. Dodla Ram Reddy Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

S. Srinivasa Yadav, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

M/s. Sonika Purified Drinking Water Plant, Vs The State of Telangana