Telangana High Court
WP/27762/2007 of Kaki Ramesh S/o Adiseshu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its on 27 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27762 of 2007 27.12.2007 Between: Kaki Ramesh … Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri B.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 27762 of 2007
27.12.2007
Between:
Kaki Ramesh
… Petitioner
AND
The Government of Andhra Pradesh,Rep. by its Principal Secretary,Revenue Department,Hyderabad & others.
… Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri B. ThimothiCounsel 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 noticedated 07.12.2007 issued by respondent No.2 as illegal, improper andcontrary to law. The petitioner has also sought for a consequentialdirection to the respondents not to acquire his land admeasuringAc.2.20 cents comprised in Survey No. 1056-3 situated at Bapatla,Guntur District.
Heard Sri B. Thimoti, learned counsel for the petitioner andlearned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.
A perusal of notice dated 07.12.2007 issued under Section 5-Aof the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) shows that the respondents issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act foracquiring lands of different persons including that of the petitioner forproviding house sites to the weaker sections under Phase-II ofIndiramma programme and that the said notification was published inDistrict Gazette Extraordinary, Local No. 97 dated 29.11.2007. On theown showing of the petitioner, after receipt of notice dated 07.12.2007,he submitted his objections on 19.07.2007 through telegram and on20.12.2007, he handed over the same to respondent No.2 in person. Without waiting for the outcome of the decision by the respondents, thepetitioner rushed to this Court.
In my considered view, this writ petition is whollymisconceived. If the petitioner’s objections were eventually rejected,that would give rise to him an opportunity to approach this Court. It isnot the case of the petitioner that the respondents have committedprocedural illegality in the issuance or publication of notification underSection 4(1) of the Act. In the absence of any jurisdictional issuehaving been raised in this writ petition, the petitioner cannot seek tostultify further proceedings taken up by the State in exercise of itspower of eminent domain.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 36310of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed.
27.12.2007
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
ksld