In a Writ Appeal arising from an interim order suspending a land acquisition notification, the Court dismissed the appeal. It directed appellants claiming rights in the land to file for impleadment before the Single Judge before interfering with the order.
Writ Appeal dismissed; miscellaneous applications closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT APPEAL NO: 165 OF 2019
writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 31.08.20'18inl.A.No.1 of 2018in W.P.No.31428ol 20lBonthefileof theHighCourt.
Between:
...RESpoNDENTS/RES'.NDENTS
lA NO: 4 OF 2019
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 31.08.2018 passed in l.A.No.1/2018 in W.P. No. 3142812018 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal,
Counsel for the Appellants: SRI RAVI CHANDRA BEJJARAM
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 & 10: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 6 & 7: SRI N. ASHOK KUMAR
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 8 & 9: SRI T. SUDHAKAR REDDY
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
/
i I
THE HON'BI,E THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHAND RA SHARMA AND
THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJAS R REDDY
Writ Appeal No. 165 of2019
JUDGMENT: eer 1e Hotl,ble ttle Chief Justice Satish Chandra Slterma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of arr order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.p.No.31428 of 2018.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the writ petition was preferred by Smt. Sama Lakshmamma and others stating that the State Government and the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board are taking possession of their land without following the provisions as contained under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acqurisition, Rehabilitation and Resettiement Act, 2013. An interim order has been passed by the learned Single Judge suspending the impugned notification.
The present writ appeal has been filed against the aforesaid order by certai.n persons claiming right over the same land.
In the considered opinion of this Court, in case the appellants are claiming right in respect of the aforesaid land, which is the subject matter of W.p.No.3 I42g of
2018, they sha-ll certainly be free to file an application for impleadment before the learned Single Judge.
Resultantly, this Court does not lind any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The writ appeal IS accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous applications pending in this writ appeal, if any, shall stand closed. There shaI1 be no order as to
costs.
SD/-CH.VENKATESWARULU DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
To,
SECTION OFFICER
;_-
HIGH COURT
DATED: 18|1112021
it\ € STA It
z
c,J 2s No\l20tt
,.o
JUDGMENT
WA.No.165 of 2019
DISMISSING THEWRIT APPEAL
WITHOUT COSTS.
%u n/o ' td\ Lv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Appeal should be allowed to interfere with the Single Judge's interim order suspending the notification for land possession.
Whether appellants claiming right over the subject land of the underlying Writ Petition should be allowed to implead.
M/s Ashok Enclave-II Owners Welfare Society, Ashok Vihar Venture-II (NMDC Colony), Upparpally P.P. Hyderguda, Ranga Reddy District
B.N.R.Aparna Nagar Upparpally, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District
Smt. Sama Lakshmamma
Sama Suresh Reddy
Sama Suman Reddy
Sama Syamsunder Reddy
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
