Telangana High Court
WP/28992/2009 of M/s. Vijaya Constructions, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2009
MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28992 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner purchased land to an extent of 971.57 sq. yards bearing premises No.7-1-621 forming part of Sy.Nos.25 and 26 of Srinivasanagar Colony, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Its grievance is that the 2nd respondent has put
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.28992 of 2009
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.
ORDER:
The petitioner purchased land to an extent of 971.57 sq. yards bearingpremises No.7-1-621 forming part of Sy.Nos.25 and 26 of SrinivasanagarColony, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Its grievance is that the 2[nd] respondent hasput fencing on its land under the assumption that it was acquired by them inthe year 1987. A Writ of Mandamus to restrain the respondents frominterfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the saidproperty is prayed for.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned StandingCounsel for the 2[nd] respondent.
The land in various survey numbers including Sy.No.26 of Ameerpetwas notified for acquisition way back in the year 1987. It is stated that a freshnotification was issued in the year 1987. Area that is acquired in Sy.No.26 isAc.3-20 gts. The petitioner states that the plot purchased by it is not coveredby acquisition.
On the other hand, the 2[nd] respondent contends that the possession ofthe area that was acquired from out of Sy.No.26 was taken in the year 2004itself, that no fresh steps have been taken and that fencing is said to havebeen made all over the land that is acquired.
The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the landpurchased by the petitioner is part of the land that was acquired by the 2[nd]respondent?
The question assumes a bit of complication on account of the fact thatthe plot purchased by the petitioner is from out of Sy.Nos.25 and 26 and the2[nd] respondent acquired substantial land in Sy.No.26. Whether or not, thevendors of the petitioner still owned any land in Sy.No.26 after acquisitionand if so, whether the one purchased by the petitioner is not covered by suchan acquisition, can be effectively adjudicated only by a Civil Court.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to work out its remedies by approaching a Civil Court. There shall be noorder as to costs.
Note:Issue C.C. in three days (B/o) Prv
___________31-12-2009