Telangana High Court
WP/28783/2009 of Kucharlapati Gopala Krishna Varma Vs The Government of A.P. by its Principal Secretarya on 31 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28783 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners claim to be the owner of plot No.6 in Survey No.161/3 of Vepagunta Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, admeasuring 121.33 square yards. Their grievance is that the respondents are trying to lay
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.
Conclusion
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.28783 of 2009
ORDER:
The petitioners claim to be the owner of plot No.6 inSurvey No.161/3 of Vepagunta Village, Pendurthi Mandal,Visakhapatnam District, admeasuring 121.33 square yards. Their grievance is that the respondents are trying to lay roadacross the said plot without acquiring the land and withoutpayment of compensation.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and thelearned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The respondents cannot utilize the property of a privateindividual for public purposes, unless it is acquired inaccordance with law. In case they need it, notifications underthe provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or under theHyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, are to bepublished. Another alternative is to acquire the land bynegotiation. Without resorting to either of them, therespondents cannot dispossess the petitioners.
Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that therespondents shall not utilize the land of the petitioners in plotNo.6 in Survey No.161/3 of Vepagunta Village, PendurthiMandal, Visakhapatnam District or part thereof, unless theprocedure prescribed by law is followed or the consent of thepetitioners is obtained. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________
(L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J)
31[st] December, 2009Prv