WP/39254/2013 of A. Ramakrishna Varma, Vs The State of A.P., on 31 December 2013

ORDER:

The case of the petitioner is that on 23.10.2013 section 4 (1)notification was issued proposing to acquire lands for the purpose ofwidening the canal.

It is the assertion of the learned counsel for petitioner that Section 4 (1) notification contemplate an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and sofar no such enquiry was initiated and even before the proceedings areconcluded in accordance with law and mandate of the Land Acquisition Act,the respondents are seeking to dispossess the petitioner compelling him toinvoke the jurisdiction of this Court.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader is fair in submitting that noaction will be taken unless proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act areconcluded or an urgency clause is invoked by the Government. As evidentfrom the reading of the documents filed in support of the writ petition, theredoes not appear to be any such move on the part of the respondents toacquire the land of the petitioner and dispossess him without following dueprocess of law and it appears to be only an apprehension on the part of thepetitioner.

Be that as it may, the matter relates to dispossession of the petitionerfrom the land owned by him, therefore, the writ petition is disposed ofdirecting the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner unless and untilproceedings as mandated by Land Acquisition Act are taken up andconcluded. No costs.

Sequel to the same, miscellaneous petition if any stands closed.

DATE: 31.12.2013TVK/KKM

________________P.NAVEEN RAO,J

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

WRIT PETITION No. 39254 of 2013

Date: 31.12.2013