Telangana High Court
WP/24155/2006 of Andhavarapu Abbai, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its on 24 December 2007
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 24155 of 2006 24.12.2007 Between: Andhavarapu Abbai & others … Petitioners AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Hyderabad & others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 24155 of 2006
24.12.2007
Between:
Andhavarapu Abbai & others
… Petitioners
AND
The Government of Andhra Pradesh,Rep. by its Principal Secretary,Irrigation Department,Hyderabad & others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri S. Rambabu Counsel for the respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare theaction of the respondents in issuing notification dated 15.09.2005under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘theAct’) by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) anddeclaration under Section 6 of the Act as illegal and arbitrary.
Heard Sri S. Rambabu, learned counsel for the petitioners andlearned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.
At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader statedthat in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4(1) anddeclaration made under Section 6 of the Act, the respondents havedeposited 80% of the compensation amount and taken possession of the petitioners’ land for the purpose of construction of HiramandalamReservoir under Vamsadhara Project, Phase-II of Stage –II in KoradaVillage. He also stated that the award enquiry is yet to be commencedand the grievance of the petitioners on the aspect of classification ofthe property and fixation of market value will be appropriatelyconsidered in that enquiry.
Sri S. Rambabu, learned counsel for the petitioners submittedthat the tentative classification made so far on the basis of whichdeposit of 80% of the advance compensation was made, is whollyimproper. He requests that the respondents may be directed to giveproper opportunity to the petitioners to put forth and substantiate theirobjections regarding the improper classification.
In the light of the apprehension expressed by the learnedcounsel for the petitioners that the respondents may not consider thepetitioners’ objections regarding classification of the properties for thepurpose of fixing market value, I direct the respondents to giveopportunity to the petitioners to file their objections in the proposedaward enquiry and duly consider them before fixing the market value.
Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 30838of 2006 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed.
24.12.2007
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
ksld