Telangana High Court
WP/15426/2010 of Dokku Shiva Prasad Vs Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development on 30 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI W.P.Nos.15426 of 2010 & 16181 of 2009 COMMON ORDER : Heard Sri M.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.15426 of 2010 and Sri P.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.16181 of 2009 and learned Government Pleader
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.
COMMON ORDER :
Heard Sri M.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners inW.P.No.15426 of 2010 and Sri P.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for thepetitioners in W.P.No.16181 of 2009 and learned Government Pleader forLand Acquisition and also the Standing Counsel for Vijayawada, Guntur,Tenali and Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority.
Since the cause of action in these two writ petitions is one and thesame, as the properties of the petitioners are covered by the samenotification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short“the Act”), these two writ petitions are heard together and are beingdisposed of by this common order.
The grievance of the petitioners precisely in these two writ petitions isthat they have properties at Agathavarapadu Village, Pedakakani Mandal,Guntur District and Koratipadu, Gorantla Gram Panchayat, Guntur RuralMandal, Guntur District and the respondents are taking away theirproperties without recourse to law.
A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali andMangalagiri Urban Development Authority, contending inter alia that on therequisition made by the Vice Chairman of the 1[st] respondent on 19.06.2010,the District Collector, Guntur issued a notification under Section 4(1) of theAct, and the same was published on 07.07.2010. It is further stated in thecounter-affidavit that the properties of the petitioners would be taken only after following due process of law under the Act and the petitioners are atliberty to file written objections on the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Itis further stated that the 3[rd] respondent company would form the road onlyafter obtaining consents of the owners or only after taking the land under theprovisions of the Act and only after passing of award and payingcompensation. It is further stated that the proposed acquisition for wideningthe road is a public purpose and would serve lakhs of people.
A reading of the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions wouldmanifestly demonstrate that the complaint of the writ petitioners is that therespondent authorities are taking their properties without following dueprocess of law.
In the light of the respective pleadings of the parties to the presentwrit petitions, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the petitioners hereinto file objections and to participate in the enquiry under the provisions ofSection 5A of the Act. It is needless to mention that it is an obligatory on thepart of the respondent authorities to consider such objections strictly inconformity with the provisions of 5A of the Act and keeping in view the lawlaid down by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court.
For the aforesaid reasons and keeping in view the factual situation,these writ petitions are disposed of, permitting the petitioners herein to fileobjections under Section 5A of the Act, within a period of one (01) monthfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order and with a further direction tothe authorities to consider the said objections after giving notice andopportunity of being heard to the petitioners herein and to proceed inaccordance with law. It is needless to observe that the petitioners shall notbe dispossessed from their respective properties without following dueprocess of law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________A.V.SESHA SAI, J
Date: 30.12.2013gvl
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
30.12.2013
Gvl
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
W.P.Nos.15426 of 2010 & 16181 of 2009
Date: 30.12.2013
W.P.No.15426 of 2010
Between:
Dokku Shiva Prasad and 3 others
And
.. Petitioners
Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, MangalagiriUrban Development Authority rep. by itsVice Chairman, Vijayawada,Krishna District and 2 others.
.. Respondents
W.P.No.16181 of 2009
Between:
Y. Ranga Rao and 11 others
And
Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, MangalagiriUrban Development Authority rep. by itsVice Chairman, Vijayawada,Krishna District and 2 others.
This Court made the following :
.. Petitioners
.. Respondents