← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/25251/2015disposed of no costs

Achanta Siva Rama Krishna, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

2015-08-17Vilas V.Afzulpurkar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * WRIT PETITION No. 25251 of 2015 BETWEEN A.Siva Rama Krishna ... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Land Acquisition Department and others ...RESPONDENTS Date of Order pronounced: 17.08.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether his Lordship wish to see the Yes/No fair copy of the Judgment?

ORDER:- Heard.

2. In response to the notification issued under Form 6A issued under Section 15(2) of the Central Act 30 of 2013, petitioner states that he has filed objections on 08.06.2015 before the second respondent. According to the petitioner, the said objections are pending and no further order is passed. But meanwhile the third respondent along with his staff is stated to be physically trying to interfere with the petitioner's notified land in R.S.No.82/3 and R.S.No.83/4 admeasuring Ac.2-18 cents and Ac.5-75 cents respectively at Krishnapuram Village, T.Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue has received instructions from the third respondent, which specifically state that neither the third respondent nor his staff ever entered into petitioner's lands with proclainers on 06.08.2015 as alleged.

4. Since the allegation of interference is denied, the relief to that extent sought for by the petitioner appears to be merely on apprehension. Since petitioner's objections are stated to be pending with the second respondent and if the same are on record, the second respondent shall examine the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 17, 2015 LMV