← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/1328/2016disposed of no costs

Balireddy Appala Raju, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh (Municipal Admn. Dept)

2016-01-19C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy3 pages

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.1328, 1347, 1357 & 1362 of 2016 Date: 19.01.2016 WP.No.1328/16 Between:

Balireddy Appala Raju and another .. Petitioners and The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Prl.Secretary Hyderabad and 2 others .. Respondents WP.No.1347/16 Between:

Balireddy Chinna Appa Rao .. Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Prl.Secretary Hyderabad and 2 others .. Respondents WP.No.1357/16 Between:

Balireddy Demullu and another .. Petitioners and The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Prl.Secretary Hyderabad and 2 others .. Respondents WP.No.1362/16 Between:

Balireddy Sathamma .. Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Prl.Secretary Hyderabad and 2 others .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla

Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Municipal Administration (AP) The Court made the following:

Common Order :

Having given consent for acquisition of their properties for road widening, the petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions, in my opinion needlessly, with the purported grievance that without paying compensation and granting TDR Certificates, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are seeking to proceed with the demolition process.

Mr.S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2- Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, on instructions, submitted that so far, the properties of the petitioners have not been demolished and that only marking has been made. He has further submitted that the petitioners have already given consent for acquisition of their properties and that before demolition of the same, respondent No.2 will comply with the requirements subject to which the petitioners have given their consent.

In the light of the above submissions of the

learned Standing Counsel, which are placed on record, no further adjudication of the Writ Petitions is necessary.

All these Writ Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, stand disposed of as infructuous.

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 19th January, 2016 lur