Telangana High Court
WP/3670/2003 of P.V.ChinnaKrishnaiah Vs Tetagunta Dhimmapur Gram Panchayat, on 29 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3670 of 2003 Between: P.V. Chinnakrishnaiah … Petitioner And Tetagunta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE,ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER,TWO THOUSAND NINE
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.3670 of 2003
Between:
P.V. Chinnakrishnaiah
… Petitioner
And
Tetagunta Thimmapuram Gram Panchayat,Rep., by its Village Secretary, Thimmapuram Village,Tuni Mandal, E.G. District & another.
… Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.3670 of 2003
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 declare theaction of the respondents in seeking to lay a road on thepetitioner’s land comprised in Sy.No.693 of Tetagunta Village, TuniMandal, East Godavari District, without following due process oflaw, as illegal and arbitrary.
Heard Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for thepetitioner. There is no representation for the respondents and nocounter affidavit is filed on their behalf.
The petitioner claims to be the owner of Ac.5.93 cents ofland in Sy.No.693 of Tetagunta Village having succeeded to thesaid property under a will executed by his grandmother. Thepetitioner averred that the respondents started laying road fromThimmapuram to Goverpeta under “Food for Work” scheme. According to the petitioner, in connection with the execution of thesaid work, the respondents marked the line by including his landwithin the alignment for laying the road. The petitioner feltaggrieved by the said action and filed the present writ petitionquestioning the same.
In the absence of a counter affidavit denying the avermentscontained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and thefailure of the respondents’ counsel to oppose the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is reasonableto presume that the respondents intended to utilize the petitioner’sland without acquiring the same. Unless the respondents initiateproceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(for short, “the Act”), it is not permissible for them to utilize anypart of the petitioner’s land. Therefore, a Mandamus shall issue tothe respondents to refrain them from utilizing any part of thepetitioner’s land without initiating proceedings under the provisionsof the Act.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the mannerindicated above, WPMP.No.4830 of 2003 filed by the petitioner forinterim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
Date: 29.12.2009ES
_____________________________
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J