HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1413 OF 2014 DATE: 19.11.2014 Between:
Madanlal Vijay Kumar … Appellant And The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad & others.
… Respondents This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1413 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.09.2014 by which His Lordship was pleased to dismiss the writ petition.
The writ petition, which is the origin of the present appeal, was the second round of litigation. Earlier, the appellant-writ petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.No.12429 of 2007 challenging the draft declaration dated 25.05.2007 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. By judgment and order dated 02.01.2014 the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by setting aside the draft declaration dated 25.05.2007. However, liberty was given to the appellant to file his objections within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of that order. Pursuant to the said order the appellant filed his objections.
After filing the objections, the appellant filed another writ petition being W.P.No.27982 of 2014 challenging the legality and validity of Section 4(1) notification, dated 24.05.2007. His Lordship took note that the appellant cannot agitate this point in the subsequent writ, as on the earlier occasion no such challenge was made and pleased to observe that since Section 5-A objections have been filed the same have to be considered by the authorities under the Act. His Lordship further observed that since that stage has not yet reached, the writ petition has become premature so to say and dismissed the same.
However, at the time of hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the respondents says that the objections of the appellant have been dealt with and separate order has been passed and challenging the said order the appellant has filed another writ petition being W.P.No.31998 of 2014, which is pending.
Under these circumstances, we do not want to take the trouble of deciding anything in this matter, as this appeal has become infructuous. All points are kept open to be agitated in the subsequent writ petition.
The writ appeal is accordingly closed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date: 19.11.2014 ES