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

2018 Supreme(SC) 1754

ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN
Hyderabad Urban Devt. Auth. (huda) – Appellant
Versus
S. B. Kirloskar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Jay Savla, AOR Ms. Renuka Sahu, Mr. Rajaraman, Advocates Mr. C.S. Vaidhayanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Mr. Prashant Tyagi, Advocates M/S. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, AOR Mr. Huzefa A. Ahmadi, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AOR Ms. Sarah Haque, Mr. Aditya Samaddar, Advocates Impleading Mr. R. Basant, Sr. adv. Mr. S. Shankar, Ms. Monalisa K., Mr. Amit K. Nain, Mr. Shishir Pinaki, Ms. Suchitra Hrangkhawl, Mr. T.V. Bhaskar Reddy, Mr. Virendra Mishra, Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy, Ms. Anu Gupta, Ms. Gouri Kumar Das Mohanti, Advocates, For the Appellant; Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, Mr. G.N. Reddy, Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AOR's Mr. K. Maruthi Rao, Mr. K. Radha, Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocates Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Mr. N. Rajaraman, Ms. C. K. Sucharita, AOR's Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Mr. Tadimalla Baskar Gowtham, Mr. Aman Shukla, Advocates Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR's Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.P. Shorawala, Advocate, For the Respondent

ORDER

Mr. Arun Mishra, J. The appeals pose a peculiar situation. On the one hand there is a concept of sustainable development and on the other hand, several changes of alignment were made within a span of one year by the appellants in the matter of acquisition of the land for the construction of Outer Ring Road (in short, 'the ORR') around Hyderabad and Sikandarabad. This Court vide order dated 16.10.2015 permitted the appellants to complete the remaining portion of the work in the ORR subject to the result of the appeal.

2. At present ring road has been completed and is in use and amount of approximately Rupees Six thousand crores has been invested for the construction of the ORR. Other development by its side has also been made.

3. The High Court found that with respect to certain areas i.e. survey nos. 25,26,28,29 & 122, the Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, 'the 1894 Act') was not issued. The High Court has also found that the change of alignment was made in order to benefit certain persons on political consideration or otherwise. In the instant case CBI investigation was also ordered and CBI found that the Hyderabad Urban Development Au

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