WP/10034/1997 of T.Aswarth, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer, on 29 December 2006

Conclusion

ORDER:

1. This writ petition has been instituted questioning the exercise of compulsoryacquisition of land indulged in by the respondents. Various contentions havebeen canvassed as to why the proposed compulsory acquisition of land isillegal. Ms.Lakshmi Pramila has appeared on behalf of the petitioner andreiterated the contentions canvassed in the writ petition. The learnedGovernment Pleader for Land Acquisition has placed before me acommunication received by him from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni on23-12-2006. The Land Acquisition Officer appears to have called for a statusreport from the local Mandal Revenue officer at Pattikonda who seems to haveinspected the land and reported that the land in question is covered with severalpits and boulders and it is not fit for acquisition for providing house sites to theweaker sections. It is also reported that a suitable alternative land available inSurvey No.219/1 at Pattikonda village was already acquired and the eligiblebeneficiaries have been granted house site pattas during the year 1998-99 andhence there is no necessity for pursuing the proposed acquisition of the land ofAc.2.32 cents, which is the subject matter of the consideration in the writpetition. It is represented that the State Government is not proceeding anyfurther with the proposed acquisition of the land and therefore, the cause in thewrit petition does not survive. Recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition based upon the instructions receivedby him from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, the writ petition is disposedof, but however without costs.

________________________

NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J

29-12-2006Stp