Telangana High Court
WP/34007/2012 of Smt. Geda Mutyam Vs The District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru. on 28 December 2012
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.34007 of 2012 Date : 28-12-2012 Between: Smt. Geda Mutyam .. Petitioner And The District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Smt. V. Padmaja Reddy Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Land
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
W.P.No.34007 of 2012
Date : 28-12-2012
Between:
Smt. Geda Mutyam ..
Petitioner
And
The District Collector,
West Godavari at EluruRespondents
and others ..
Counsel for petitioner : Smt. V. Padmaja ReddyCounsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleaderfor 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 a mandamus to set-asideproceedings Roc.No.G1/2156/2012(SW), dated 21-8-2012.
An extent of Ac.0-47 cents in R.S.No.316/1B and317/2 of Bhimadole village and Mandal, West GodavariDistrict, was notified for acquisition for providing of pathwayto the colony of the beneficiaries under the IndirammaGruha Nirmana Padhakam. Out of the said extent, anextent of Ac.0-38 cents belongs to the petitioner. She filedher objections to the proposed acquisition mainly on theground that she has only Ac.1-88 cents out of which Ac.0-38cents are sought to be acquired. After proper enquiry,respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order rejectingthe objections of the petitioner and other land owners.
Undoubtedly, providing pathway to the beneficiaries ofa Government sponsored scheme constitutes ‘publicpurpose’. When acquisition is inevitable, the Government isentitled to exercise its power of eminent domain. The pleaof the petitioner that there was alternative pathway, is notsupported by any material. Having regard to the purpose forwhich the acquisition in question is proposed to be made and the further fact that the petitioner will be left with nearly1½ acres of land after acquisition, I am not inclined tointerfere with the impugned order. The Writ Petition isaccordingly dismissed. Liberty is however left with thepetitioner to seek reference of the dispute relating to fixationof compensation, to the Civil Court under Section 18 of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894.
As a sequel, interim order dated 2-11-2012 asextended on 4-12-2012 is vacated and WPMPNo.43263 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous.
________________________
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date : 28-12-2012
AM