Kesiraju Seetharamaiah vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(AP) 210

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Kesiraju Seetharamaiah – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : B. Rachna Reddy
For the Respondents: B. Krishna Mohan, Assistant Solicitor General, A. Laxminarayana and Government Pleaders

JUDGMENT :

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. The petitioners are the owners of different extents of lands in different survey numbers in Devarapalli Village and Mandal, West Godavari District filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of mandamus. WP No. 13720 of 2017 is filed for the following relief:

"declaring the action of the 6th respondent herein, in issuing File No. RDOKUR-RT10APPL (WSLA)/39/2016-AO-RDO-KOVVURU Roc. No. 2504/2016 (NH) (endorsement) dated 2.11.2016 and consequential Roc. No. 2504/16/NH-16SH107 (EGK) (endorsement) dated 2.2016, pursuant to applications made under the Right to Information Act, 2005, in relation to the building (widening/six lining etc.,) maintenance, management and operation of realigned portion of National Highway 16 SH107 (EGK) on the stretch of land from Kms. 15.700 to Kms. 81.400 from Gundugolanu-Kowuru Section, West Godavari District, A.P., whereby the 6th respondent claims that the multiple factor for calculation of compensation is applicable at 1.25 in rural areas per GO. Ms. No. 389 dated 20.11.2014,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union VS State Of Kerala - 2006 4 Supreme 156: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment (e.g., followed, overruled, reversed). The entry describes a holding that Rule 4(2) is ultra vires, with no reference to subsequent case treatment.

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS SRI SEETARAM RICE MILL - 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 1027: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment. The entry outlines distinctions between Sections 126 and 135, appealability, and violations, presented as established points without treatment indicators.

Hinsa Virodhak Sangh VS Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 503: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment. The entry states an "Importent Point" on closure of slaughter houses not being unreasonable, with no subsequent treatment mentioned.

A. P. STEEL RE-ROLLING MILL LTD. VS State of Kerala - 2005 0 Supreme(SC) 1549: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment. The entry summarizes the doctrine of promissory estoppel and its application, described as "the main legal point established," without treatment indicators.

Dewan Chand Builders & Contractors VS Union of India - 2011 8 Supreme 381: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment. The entry states a "true test" for distinguishing tax from fee, presented as a definitive principle without subsequent treatment.

Government of Andhra Pradesh VS Smt. P. Laxmi Devi - 2008 2 Supreme 472: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment. The entry lists "important Points" upholding Section 47A(1) as constitutional under strict construction and Thayer’s doctrine, with no treatment indicators.

Union of India VS M. K. Sarkar - 2009 8 Supreme 97: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment. The entry lists points on time limits for options and Article 14 not enforcing negative equality, presented as holdings without subsequent treatment.

2019 Supreme(AP) 210

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHYKesiraju Seetharamaiah – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

Cases Referred (11)

Judicial Analysis

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Kesiraju Seetharamaiah – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent