Telangana High Court
WP/39043/2012 of K. Ramu Vs Land Acquisition Officer cum R.D.O., on 31 December 2012
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39043 of 2012 Date: 31.12.2012 Between: K.Ramu ..... Petitioner And: 1. Land Acquisition Officer-cum-R.D.O., Chittoor and two others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sharad Sanghi Counsel for the Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.39043 of 2012
Between:
Date: 31.12.2012
K.Ramu
And:
..... Petitioner
1. Land Acquisition Officer-cum-R.D.O.,Chittoor and two others.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sharad Sanghi Counsel for the Respondents: Assistant GovernmentPleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following:
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:
This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantial relief:
“……. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction moreparticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondents in acquiring part ofthe property bearing Municipal No.23-36 in the IndustrialEstate (Expansion), Chittoor in Sy.No.495/1 and 495/2 ofNo.76, Kattamanchi Revenue Village, within the limits ofAPILLA, Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor District along with shedand building on a total area admeasuring 682.5 squareyards as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles ofnatural justice and consequently, direct the respondentsnot to demolish any part of the shed or building in theproperty bearing Municipal No.23-36 in the Industrial Estate (Expansion), Chittoor in Sy.No.495/1 and 495/2 ofNo.76, Kattamanchi Revenue Village, within the limits ofAPILLA, Chittoor Mandal and District.
After arguing the case, Sri Sharad Sanghi,learned counsel for the petitioner, sought permission ofthe Court to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to thepetitioner to approach the Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer for appropriate relief.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed aswithdrawn with liberty to the petitioner in terms of theprayer made.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.49544 of 2012 filed by the petitioner forinterim relief is dismissed as infructuous.
____________________________
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY
31[st] January 2012DR