Telangana High Court
WP/27857/2007 of Kasthuri Chinna Gopaiah, Vs The Special Collector (Land Acquisition) on 27 December 2007
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27857 of 2007 27.12.2007 Between: Kasthuri Chinna Gopaiah & others … Petitioners AND The Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi, Sankarapuram, Kadapa District & another … Respondents Counsel for the
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 27857 of 2007
27.12.2007
Between:
Kasthuri Chinna Gopaiah & others
… Petitioners
AND
The Special Collector (Land Acquisition),Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi, Sankarapuram,Kadapa District & another … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy Counsel for the respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition
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.
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare theaction of the respondents in not including certain structures belongingto the petitioners in notification dated 05.12.2007 issued under Section4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) andpublished in Eenadu Telugu daily newspaper, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioners in their affidavit filed in support of the writpetition pleaded that the structures belonging to them situated inHarijanawada and Yanadi Colony of Varikunta Village of AtloorMandal, Kadapa District are proposed for acquisition and notificationunder Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 02.12.2007 in Eenadudaily newspaper, that there are structures like Bodha Roof houses,Zinc sheet roofs and BJCR (Bridgical Jelly Concrete Roof) houses inexistence on the said property. The grievance of the petitioners is thatthese structures are not included in the notification issued underSection 4(1) of the Act.
Heard Sri D. Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for thepetitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for LandAcquisition.
Though the petitioners have not filed any material in support ofthe existence of the alleged structures, except the representationsmade by them to respondent No.2, I do not propose to non-suit thepetitioners only for the reason because if there really exist suchstructures and they are not included in the notification, the petitionerscannot be denied compensation.
Since the issue whether the structures really exist or not can beascertained only by making a personal inspection, I deem itappropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondentNo.2 to make a local inspection of the property, which is under acquisition, after giving advance notice to the petitioners, make thepersonal assessment and include these structures, if they are found tobe in existence under acquisition, if necessary, by issuing anaddendum to the notification already issued under Section 4(1) of theAct.
Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is disposedof.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 36433of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of asinfructuous.
27.12.2007
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
ksld