Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Kiranmayee Mandava
C Vikram Sai, S/O. C. Sai Ramalinga Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By Its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispossession without due process is challenged. (Para 2) |
| 2. claim of unlawful dispossession; reliance on supreme court ruling. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. clarification on survey and acquisition process. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. writ petition disposed with directions to follow law. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER :
Kiranmayee Mandava, J.
Heard Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Government Pleader for Municipality, Administration & Urban Development, and Sri Singaluri Shanti Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Challenging the action of the 4th respondent in forcibly dispossessing the petitioner from his private patta land located in Sy. No. 285/1 of Kattamanchi Village, Chittoor Mandal, for the purpose of laying a public road, without following the due procedure of law as enunciated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the instant Writ Petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the subject land is required for a public purpose, the respondents are at liberty to take recourse to
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
