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

1989 Supreme(AP) 70

A.SEETHARAM REDDY
Munagala Sambi Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Dist. Collector Guntur – Respondent


A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) COMMON points arise in all these - writ petitions and therefore they could be disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) AN area of Ac. 102-63 cents of land in Koritipadu village has been acquil red, by way of a notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short la Act) dated 15-9-86 for the purpose of development of the same into plots by the urban Development Authority, the 3rd respondent herein and for allotment of the same for construction of the houses. That is the subject-matter of challenge in these writ petitions.

( 3 ) SEVEN contentions are raised on behalf of the petitioners by Sri VLNGK murthy; (1) The notification so issued under section 4 (1) of the L. A. Act has to be quashed since the Collector is not competent to issue the same, as it has to be issued by the Government, which has been admittedly for the benefit of the Urban development Authority. (2) The acquisition is with a profit motive and so, it is a fraud on power. (3) The wholesale acquisition of the land comprising Ac. 102-63 cents is not necessary. (4) There are Government lands in an extent of 100 acres leased out to a church and since the lease is expired, the

















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