REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

BORIGE SOMESWARA RAO Appellant

V/S

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

KANNIAMMAL V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
OSURI SATYAVATHAMMA V. THE COLLECTOR,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT [REFERRED TO]
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER V. A.N. DAMODARA MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
HINDU KANYA MAHA VIDYALAYA V. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF BOMBAY VS. NUSSERWANJI RATTANJI MISTRI [REFERRED TO]
SUNDERLAL VS. PARAMSUKHDAS [REFERRED TO]
GUNWANT KAUR VS. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE BHATINDA [REFERRED TO]
HIMALAYAN TILES AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. FRANCIS VICTOR COUTINHO [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SHIVKUMAR BHARGAVA [REFERRED TO]
UGGAR SEN KASHYAP VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMADSARIF V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD VS. NAGAJIBHAI LAXMANBHAI [REFERRED TO]
VELAGAPUDI KANAKA DURGA VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KRISHNA DISTRICT CHILAKPADUI [REFERRED TO]
V KOTESWARA RAO VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CLASS IV EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY VS. TANUBODDI VENKATAPPA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA MURTHY U VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR APSRTC VS. M KAMALAKUMARI [REFERRED TO]
II ADDITIONAL SPL AND ACQUISITION OFFICER HARBOUR MANGALORE VS. B FAKRUDDIN AHMED [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CUTTACK VS. MAYADHAR SAHU [REFERRED TO]
LAXMANRAO KRISTRAO VS. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
SEETHALAKSHMI AMMAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDERJIT VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
N M VENKATARAMA IYER VS. COLLECTOR OF TANJORE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the writ petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and also the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

(2.) The twin questions which had been argued in elaboration by the respective Counsel are (1) Whether the land acquisition proceedings are vitiated for non-issuance of the notice to the writ petitioner under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience and (2) Whether the land claimed by the writ petitioner under the sale deed and the land acquired can be said to be one and the same in the light of the specific stand taken by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. The respective Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions while making their submissions.

(3.) The writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing notice before attempting to acquire the land of the petitioner to an extent of Acs. 1-48 cents in S.No.60-lD of Raghunathapuram Village (old), presently known as Tekkali, Srikakulam District as illegal, bad, contrary to principles of natural justice and offending Articles 14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to pass such other suitable orders.

Click here to view full judgment.

BORIGE SOMESWARA RAO Vs. DIST COLLECTOR SRIKAKULAM

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address