K. RAMASWAMY, M. N. VENKATACHALIAH
N. Krishnamachari – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, Apsrtc, Hyderabad – Respondent
(1) THE government of A. P. published the notification under Section 4(1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 8/7/1988 acquiring certain lands for the construction of bus stand complex in Tirupati town (Lord Balaji Pilgrimage Centre) followed by a declaration issued under Section 6 with which we would later deal with. The notification was challenged by the interested persons including the petitioner in WP Nos. 838 of 1990, 12450 of 1988, 12919 of 1988 and 13631 of 1988. In some of the writ petitions the APSRTC the beneficiary impleaded itself as a party respondent to the writ petitions. When the writ petitions had come up for final hearing, the name of the counsel for the Corporation was not printed in the cause list published by the High court. Consequently the counsel could not notice the posting of the writ petitions and the disposal thereof. Thereafter, the counsel filed an application for review of the orders of the division bench. We are informed that in two cases, the review petitions seem to have been dismissed on the ground that Corporation was not a party to the writ petitions and that, therefore, the review petition would not lie at their instance. The review pet
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.