Telangana High Court
WP/28469/2007 of Bovilla Narasa Reddy, Vs The Special Collector (Land Acquisition) on 31 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 28469 of 2007 Dated: 31.12.2007 Between: Bovilla Narasa Reddy and others. … Petitioners AND The Special Collector (LA), Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi (GNSS), Kadapa, Kadapa District & another. … Respondents Counsel
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 28469 of 2007
Dated: 31.12.2007
Between:
Bovilla Narasa Reddy and others.
… PetitionersANDThe Special Collector (LA),Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi (GNSS),Kadapa, Kadapa District & another.… RespondentsCounsel for the petitioners : Sri T. Nagarjuna ReddyCounsel for the respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No. 28469 of 2007
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 a writ of mandamus to declarethe action of the respondents in not including certain structuresand trees belonging to the petitioners in notification dated21.11.2007 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) and published in Telugu Naadu eveningnewspaper, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioners in their affidavit filed in support of the writpetition pleaded that their lands situated in Akutotapalli village areproposed for acquisition and notification under Section 4 (1) of theAct was published on 21.11.2007 in Telugu Naadu eveningnewspaper; that there are structures of BJCR (Bridgical JellyConcrete Roof) and Mangalore tiled roof houses in existence onthe said property. The grievance of the petitioners is that thestructures existing on their lands, which are proposed to beacquired, are not included in the notification issued under Section4 (1) of the Act.
Heard Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for thepetitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for LandAcquisition.
Though the petitioners have not filed any material in support of the existence of the said alleged structures, except therepresentation made by them to respondent No.2, I do not proposeto non-suit the petitioners only for that reason because if therereally exist such structures and they are not included in thenotification, the petitioners cannot be denied compensation.
Since the dispute whether the structures really exist or notcan be ascertained only by making a personal inspection, I deem itappropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction torespondent No.2 to make a local inspection of the property, whichis under acquisition, after giving advance notice to the petitioners,make the personal assessment and include these structures, ifthey are found to be in existence under acquisition, if necessary,by issuing an addendum to the notification already issued underSection 4 (1) of the Act.
Subject to the above observation, the writ petition isdisposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition,WPMP.No.37185 of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief isdisposed of as infructuous.
_____________________________