IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.11297 of 2011 BETWEEN Murarikar Kishan.
... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Nizamabad District and two others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEVELOPMENT The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed alleging that respondents are trying to acquire and take possession of the land of the petitioner, being Ac.1.30 guntas, in Sy.Nos.3210/AA, 3211/A, 3211/AA, 3211/E, 3225/AA, 3223/AA situated at Khanapur Road, Nizamabad District.
2. On 30.04.2011, while issuing notice before admission, this Court granted interim direction staying dispossession of the petitioner.
3. Respondent No.3 has since filed counter affidavit stating that the land of the petitioner was never acquired for the bypass road and in support thereof, he submits as follows:
“… A copy of the notification issued in Form-2A published in Daily Newspaper Eenadu dt.20.02.2010 along with D N & DD are submitted herewith as an evidence and to prove that the lands of the writ petitioner in Sy.Nos.3210/AA, 3211/A, 3211/AA, 3211/E, 3225/AA, 3223/AA situated at Nizamabad shivar were not acquired for Bye- pass road.”
In view of the said averments, it is specifically asserted that the land of the petitioner was not acquired, hence, there was no question of issuance of any notice or giving an opportunity of personal hearing and for the purpose of road, the land adjoining, belonging to the Government, was utilized.
4 Counter affidavit was filed as early as on 15.06.2011 and served on the petitioner. However, no reply affidavit is filed. Apparently, the cause in the writ petition does not survive in view of the specific averments in the counter. Hence, no further orders are called for.
The writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J June 12, 2014 DSK