Back
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
Ranga Gundaiah S/o Late Sri R. Nagaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments-II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad – Respondent
ORDER :
All these Writ Petitions are filed questioning G.O.Rt.No.488 Revenue (Endowments-II) Department, dated 23.12.2021, and the consequential preliminary notification bearing No.G1/773/2020, dated 04.02.2022, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act, 2013’), by the respondents and as such, all the Writ Petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The impugned Government Order was issued by the Government in exercise of its power under Clause (e) of Section 10(A) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Telangana Amendment) Act, 2016, exempting the application of the provisions of Chapter II and III of the Act, 2013, for acquisition of the private land admeasuring Acs.29.04 gts., and structures around Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Dharmapuri, for initiating Developmental Works. Pursuant to the said Government Order, the impugned notification, dated 04.02.2022, was issued by the respondents and the same was published in the Telangana Gazette
The provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 apply to all acquisitions of land for the use of the appropriate Gover....
The exemption from Social Impact Assessment under s. 10-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (as amended by Telangana Act 2016) for specific projects categorized as public purpose is valid, and disput....
The government must demonstrate clear, specific public interest and compliance with proviso mandates to invoke section 10A exemptions. Without satisfying these jurisdictional facts, the exclusion of ....
The acquisition for a purpose stated in general terms, such as “for the execution of the Interim General Plan for the Greater Delhi”, or “for the planned development of Delhi”, cannot be described as....
The court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and the requirement for acquisitions to serve a 'public purpose' as defined under the Act of 2013.
The court affirmed that lands acquired for public purpose cannot be deemed unviable based solely on non-utilization, emphasizing the executive's discretion in assessing public interest.
Supreme Court has further struck a note of caution that though Courts are generally not entitled to go behind declaration of Government to effect that acquisition is for "public purpose", an exercise....
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
