IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 17691 of 2014 BETWEEN M.Ravi Chandra Yadav and others AND ... PETITIONERS The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned government pleader representing respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4; and Mr. S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.
2. Petitioners claim that their mother was the original owner of land admeasuring 195 sq.yds., out of total extent of 960 sq. yds., in Survey No.158/1 of Kommadi Village, Madhurawada Gram Panchayt, Chinnagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Alleging that the said land is being taken by the respondents for the purpose of widening of the road, without following due process of law, the present writ petition is filed. Though in paragraph 5 it is stated that respondents are removing the existing mango and coconut trees from the part of the petitioners’ land, no date or other details are given.
3. On the last date of hearing, when the matter was heard on 30.06.2014 while granting time to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents to get instructions, interim direction was given to maintain status quo, as existing, as on that day with regard to the land claimed by the petitioners.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation today, on instructions, submits that the road widening work is taken up by the Corporation, but so far as the petitioners’ land is concerned, no part thereof is utilised or is proposed to be utilised by the respondents as at present, and if and when respondent No.3 requires any part of the petitioners’ land, they will follow due process of law either by following the procedure prescribed under the H.M.C. Act or by resorting to acquisition under Land Acquisition Act.
5. In view of the said categorical averment on behalf of the Corporation, no further orders are necessary in this petition.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 17, 2014 LMV