SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 597

Prasada Rao Mikkilineni – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.

3. A limited notice was issued at the SLP stage on 10th November, 1997 to the following effect :

"Delay condoned.

Issue notice for final disposal requiring the Respondents to show cause why reference as asked for should not be made."

4. We find that there is a dispute about the title as also regarding computation of appropriate compensation for acquiring the land in question. Hence, this is a fit case where the High Court should have allowed the Writ Petition and should have directed the Land Acquisition Officer to make reference under Section 18 read with Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Only on this short ground, therefore, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to make a reference, under Section 18 read with Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, to the appropriate Court within eight weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order at his end.

5. Office to send a copy of this order to the Spl. Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition Officer (Central), Hyderabad (A.P.) for necessary action.

6. No costs.

(C.R.) A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top