Maramreddy Harish Kumar Reddy, S/O. Mastan Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH W.P.No. 24011 of 2015 Between:

Maramreddy Harish Kumar Reddy and another ... Petitioners and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ... Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 31.8.2015 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

No Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reports/Journals No Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

No

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P. NO. 24011 of 2015 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners question the preliminary notification dated 4.5.2015 under Section 11 of the Central Act 30/2013 with regard to proposed acquisition of land to an extent of Ac.25-00 acres in Sy.No. 527 part situated at Koduru village, T.P. Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore district. The petitioner has merely mentioned that the above proposed land is near the seashore and not fit for acquisition. However, during the hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a ground that the acquisition notification is violative of Coastal Rural Zone Regulation as the proposed land for acquisition is within that prohibited zone.

Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on instructions, submits that the aforesaid land is proposed to be acquired for rehabilitation of 150 fishermen families of Nelatur village under R & R

programme who were displaced due to establishment of Sri Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal Power Station and the petitioners are said to have filed their objections to the land acquisition notification and the said objections are pending consideration.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said objections were filed by the petitioners subsequent to filing of the writ petition and he seeks permission to file additional objections regarding CRZ violations.

Since the petitioners' objections are pending consideration, the petitioners are given liberty to file supplementary objections taking appropriate pleas, if they so desire and it is directed that the respondents shall consider the objections of the petitioners including the supplementary objections, if filed and take an appropriate decision whether a final notification is required to be issued in terms of Central Act 30/2013. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 31.8.2015 KR