Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Mohd. Mir Laiq Ali, S/o. Mir Iqbal Ali – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and proposed acquisition of petitioner's property. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding compensation and legal procedures. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. interpretation of acquisition methods under ghmc act. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. consensus required for property acquisition. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. writ petition allowed based on findings. (Para 18 , 19) |
ORDER :
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.
This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to acquire the land of the petitioner to an extent of 126.25 square meters in Plot No.135, situated at Masid Banda in Sy.No.192 of Kondapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, vide proceedings No.RW/TPS/Cir-XI/GHMC/2012, dated 01.06.2013, of respondent No.3, without following the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the L.A.Act’) read with A.P. Amendment Act, 2008, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents-Corporation to pay compensation to the petitioner for the land acquired by initiating proceedings under the L.A. Act.
2. Heard Sri Suderndra Desai learned Counsel for the petitioner
Land acquisition without mutual consent violates the statutory requirements, necessitating due process and compensation under the L.A. Act.
Acquisition of property requires mutual agreement between owner and authorities, following the due process outlined in the Land Acquisition Act.
The constitutional right to property requires compliance with legal procedures for acquisition, emphasizing that no valid transaction occurs without proper consent and compensation mechanisms.
The petitioner, having consented to the land acquisition, was entitled to the concessions offered by the respondent-Corporation, and the court directed the extension of benefits under G.O.Ms.No.168, ....
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
