Telangana High Court
WP/27963/2008 of Gulam Ahmed Vs The Spl. Dy. Collector, LA on 24 December 2008
MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 27963 of 2008 DATED: 24.12.2008 Between: Gulam Ahmed ……Petitioner AND The Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Lower Tankbund Road, Hyderabad and others . ….Respondents THE HON’BLE MS.
WRIT PETITION No. 27963 of 2008
DATED: 24.12.2008
Between:
Gulam Ahmed
……Petitioner
AND
The Special Deputy Collector, L.A.
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
Lower Tankbund Road, Hyderabad and others . ….Respondents
THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
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 seeking a writ of Mandamus declaringthe notification dated 02.09.2008 published under Section 4 (1) of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894 acquiring certain extents of land situated inShaher-e-Hyderabad Village for the purpose of widening the road fromHimmathpura Junction to Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad District, asarbitrary and illegal.
As could be seen from the impugned notification, the urgencyclause under Section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short‘the Act’’) was invoked, thereby dispensing with the enquiry underSection 5-A of the Act.
The impugned notification has been challenged primarily on theground that the action of the respondents in dispensingwith theenquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, thereby depriving the petitioner toraise his objections is arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted.
Heard the learned counsel for both parties. The fact thatthough the notification was published in the month of September,2008, the possession has not yet been taken itself shows that there isno urgency as such and the respondents could have given anopportunity to the petitioner to raise his objections.
Sri R. Radha Krishna Reddy, who accepted notice for thesecond respondent-Corporation, under instructions, stated that if anyobjections are submitted by the petitioner within a specific time, thesame would be considered by the respondents.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of permitting thepetitioner herein to raise his objections, if any, within a period of twoweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such objections are received, the third respondent shall consider the sameand pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, beforeproceeding further. Till such time, there shall be stay of dispossessionof the petitioner from the land in question. No costs.
--------------------------
24[th] December, 2008
NOTE:-Issue C.C. by Monday (By Order) bud
WRIT PETITION No.27963 of 2008
DATED:24.12.2008