Telangana High Court
WP/34618/2011 of Dandu Kanakadurga Vara Prasad Raju Vs Government of Andhra pradesh on 29 December 2011
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.34618 of 2011 Date: 29.12.2011 Between: Dandu Kanakadurga Vara Prasada Raju And four others. ..... Petitioners And: Government of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd by Its Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.34618 of 2011
Between:
Date: 29.12.2011
Dandu Kanakadurga Vara Prasada RajuAnd four others.
And:
..... Petitioners
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd byIts Secretary, Revenue Department,Hyderabad and three others.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.R.Sasidharan Nair For Sri B.Nagi Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: GP for 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 the following substantialrelief:
“….. to issue a writ, order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare thenotification issued by the 2[nd] respondent under Section4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in Form-2Abearing R.O.C.No.G1/8154/2011/S.W., dated27.11.2011, proposing to acquire our landsadmeasuring Ac.2.00, 0.50, 0.50, 0.75, 0.25 and 0.22cents in Sy.Nos.321, 322/7, 322/9, 322/10 situated atPippara Village, Ganapavaram Mandal, West GodavariDistrict, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.”
At the hearing, Sri K.R.Sasidharan Nair, learnedcounsel representing Sri B.Nagi Reddy, learned counsel forthe petitioners, stated that since enquiry under Section 5-Aof the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is envisaged, his clientsmay be permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty tothem to participate in the said enquiry and with the furtherliberty of availing appropriate remedy in the event, theirobjections are rejected after enquiry.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed aswithdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners in terms of theprayer made.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition,W.P.M.P.No.43060 of 2011 filed by the petitioners forinterim relief is dismissed as infructuous.
__________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J29[th] December 2011DR