Telangana High Court
WP/27904/2007 of Ch.Venkata Surya Naga Lakshmi, Vs The District Collector, on 27 December 2007
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27904 of 2007 27.12.2007 Between: Ch. Venkata Surya Naga Lakshmi & another … Petitioners AND The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada & others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri L.V.S. Nagaraju Counsel for
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 27904 of 2007
27.12.2007
Between:
Ch. Venkata Surya Naga Lakshmi & another … Petitioners
AND
The District Collector,East Godavari District, Kakinada & others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri L.V.S. Nagaraju 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 declarenotification dated 23.10.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), whereby an extent of Ac.1.73cents in Survey No. 133/2 in Siripalli Village, Inavalli Mandal, EastGodavari District is proposed to be acquired, as illegal, arbitrary andviolative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Heard Sri L.V.S. Nagaraju, learned counsel for the petitionersand learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition forthe respondents.
It is evident from the pleadings of the writ petition that thepetitioners are the daughters of respondent No.4 through his first wifelate Subbalakshmi and there is a family dispute with regard to sharing of properties among the petitioners, his father and his second wifeVelavalapalli Annapurna. It is further evident from the pleadings thatthe petitioners filed O.S. No. 56 of 2007 before the Court of Senior CivilJudge, Amalapuram for partition of the properties in four equal sharesand allotment of one-fourth share to each of them. It is further pleadedthat to preempt the claim of the petitioners, respondent No.4 had givenconsent for acquisition of the land which is subject matter of this writpetition and that in pursuance of the same, respondent Nos.1 to 3dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act.
From the pleadings of the petitioners, it is clear that their rightsover the properties held by respondent No.4, of which the landproposed to be acquired under the impugned notification is a part,have not yet got crystallized. The suit filed by them for partition andallotment of separate shares is pending before a civil Court. As ontoday, respondent No.4, being the registered owner, is, admittedly, theholder of the property. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioners,at the moment, have no locus to question the proposed acquisition of apart of the land held by respondent No.4, more so when the latter hadgiven his consent for such acquisition. Since the suit filed by thepetitioners is pending, they can work out their remedies only in thesaid suit and, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable.
For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. Liberty is given to the petitioners to seek appropriate relief in thepending suit.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 36496of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
ksld