Telangana High Court
WA/1792/2008 of Smt. Sakeena Begum, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1792 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABADTUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTPRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICEand THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT APPEAL NO : 1792 of 2008
(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Orderdated 31/10/2008 in WP NO : 13689 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.)
Between:
Smt. Sakeena Begum, W/o. Late Zahuruddin, R/o. 20-7-308, Fateh Darwaza, Hyderabad.
AND
..... APPELLANT
1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, LandAcquisition Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad.
3 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner and Special Officer Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.
4 The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:DR.I.SUJATHA M/S. I.L.N.SASTRY, LAWOFFICE
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
The Court made the following :
JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ)
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.
1. Being aggrieved by a common order passed in W.P.No. 19269 of2007 and 13689 of 2008, this appeal has been filed so far as W.P.No.13689 of 2008 is concerned.
2. The land acquisition proceedings have been challenged in theaforestated petition by the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that 18.3 Sq.yards of land belonging to the petitioner was required for the purpose ofroad widening and, therefore and after undergoing necessary procedureunder the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land inquestion belonging to the petitioner had been acquired. The acquisitionproceedings were challenged in the said petition.
3. After hearing the concerned Advocates and looking to the facts ofthe case, the petition has been rejected by the learned single Judge and,therefore, this appeal has been filed.
4. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted thatthough there was no urgency, urgency clause was applied and yetpossession of the land in question was not taken promptly as requiredunder the provisions of the Act by the Government authorities.
5. Upon hearing the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant,we do not find any substance in the argument for the reason that wideningof the road was not an urgent matter. Moreover we find that the petitionerhad resisted in the matter of giving possession of the land in questionand, therefore, some delay had been caused because of the saidresistance. In our opinion, the petitioner cannot be permitted to takeundue advantage of his own resistance.
6. Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, there is nosubstance in the appeal and the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
30[th] December, 2008.GRR
_____________________
ANIL R. DAVE, CJ
__________________________R. SUBHASH REDDY, J