Hon'ble Justice K. Sarath dismissed Writ Petition No. 9410 of 2012 and related miscellaneous petitions as withdrawn by the petitioner after respondents paid compensation, deciding no order as to costs.
Dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn. Miscellaneous petitions 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.
[3302 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
WRIT PETITION NO:9410 OF 2012
Between:
Smt. G. Kavitha, Wo. G. Arun Kumar, Aged 34 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o.H.No.41-26, Moula Ali Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Draft Declaration issued in Memo No. G21735O1201O, dated 12.11.2011 u/s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereby rejecting the Objection dated O7.O2.2O1 1 of the petitioner filed u/s 5-A of the Act, in Lr.No. Cl294l2O1O, dated ...1 1.2011 in respect of the petitioner property at D.No.41-2511 ,41-26 and 41-261A at Sy.No.383/1 situated at Moula Ali Village of Malkajgiri Mandal Ranga Reddy District District for the purpose of Road Widening based upon the Notification No. G2l735Ol2O1O, dated 12.11 .2010, issued u/s. 4(1) of the Act, thereby issuing Notices dated 26.O3.2012 issued u/s. 9 & 10 of the Act to pass Award, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to the Provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 violative of Article 300-4 of Constitution of lndia, consequently set aside the Notification u/s. 4(1) dated
12-11.2010 of the Act hording as ilegar, unjust void abinitio as there is no varid declaration to vest the land with the rJspondents.
l.A. NO:'t OF 2012(WPMP. NO:1190 3 0F 20121
Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the.affidavit fired in support of the peiitio;, ihu Higr' court may G p[r*a t" direct the 5th respondent to remove the wa, constructed across the Road around the Arch/Kamam on the Main Road to enabre-to generar pubric to have the access through the Road situated at Moura AIi viilage of'Markajgir;'il;n;ar Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the above writ petition.
t.A. NO: 2 0F 2012 MP. NO: 11 902 oF 2012
Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the peiitio;, in" riign court may oe'pLr."? t" stay of arr further proceedin_gs incruding demorition/dispo.r".riJn- oiln" p.etitioner from the propertv at D-No ar-25ti.ql-za and 41i6rA "i Sv.rvo.satr situated at l/oura Ari viflage of Markajgiri n,,anoat Ranga Reddy District by suspending the operation of the Drafi decraration tvterio wo.eiilrioiioro, dated.'1 2. 1 1 .20 j 1 pending disposat of the above wiit petiton.
I.A. NO: 3 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 1 3032 0F 2012
Between:
...PETITIONER/PROPOSED RESpONDENT No.6
AND
...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
Petition under section'r s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to implead the petitioner as Respondent No. 6 in Wp No. 941O of 2012.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(W MP. NO: 36 OF 2014)
Between:
...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS
AND
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
(Respondent No.2 & 3 are not a necessary parties)
Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders made in WPMP No.1'19O2 of 2012 in WP No.9410 of 2012 dated 03.O4.2012 and dismiss the writ petition
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRI CHATLA MADHU, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS Counsel forthe Proposed Respondent: SRI MD. AJMAL AHMED
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.941O of 2Ol2
ORDER:
Learned Counsel for the petitioner on written instructions submits that the respondents have paid compensation amount for the land acquired pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court on O3.O4.2O12 and seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition.
COSTS
SO/. P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGIST
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
5 fwo ccs toGp F-oR RoADS & BUtLDtNGS, High courl for the State of
^Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies 3) '>,
HIGH COURT
DATED:22101t2024
ORDER
WP.No.9410 of 2012
.:-,, '''t -' <br>17 i'-
:)
! .'-.':rr' ':
. .
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition regarding draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act should be allowed or dismissed.
Whether to grant interim relief regarding obstruction of road or stay of proceedings.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. G. Kavitha
Government of Andhra Pradesh
Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District
Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
Chief Engineer, Government of Andhra Pradesh
K. SARATH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
