Telangana High Court
WP/29720/2011 of Bondada Suryanarayana Vs The Principal Secretary to Govt, on 29 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.29720 of 2011 Dated 29th December, 2011 Between: Bondada Suryanarayana …Petitioner And The Government of Andhara Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWrit Petition No.29720 of 2011
Between:
Dated 29thDecember, 2011
Bondada Suryanarayana
And
…Petitioner
The Government of Andhara Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary,Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad andothers …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A.V.Sesha Sai Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for RevenueCounsel for respondent No.4: Sri V.Venugopala Rao 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 asidenotification, dated 02.02.2005, issued by respondent No.1, underSection 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) anddeclaration, dated 12.04.2007, issued under Section 6 of the Act to theextent they relate to Acs.2.60 cents in R.S.No.51/1C, Ac.0.30 cents inR.S.No.50/1B and Ac.0.03 cents in R.S.No.50/6B of DwarakaTirumala Village and Mandal, East Godavari District.
At the hearing, it is conceded by the learned GovernmentPleader for Land Acquisition and Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learnedStanding Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, that declarationunder Section 6 of the Act was published beyond the stipulated periodof one year from the date of publication of notification issued underSection 4(1) of the Act and that therefore, the acquisition proceedingshave lapsed.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed declaring thatthe impugned notification has lapsed to the extent of the petitioner’sland only. This order, however, does not preclude the respondentsfrom initiating land acquisition proceedings afresh.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.36806of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.4800 of 2011 are disposed of asinfructuous.
29[th] December, 2011VGB
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J