W.V. GOPAL KRISHNA v. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLECTOR
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to ISSUE A WRIT ORDER, DIRECTION MORE PARTICULARLY IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT A MANDAMUS DECLARING THEACTION OF RESPONDENTS IN NOT PAYING THE COMPENSETION AS PER AWARD NO.B2/681/85, DATED; 27-2-1989 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 31 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1984 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE COMPENSATION FORTHWITH. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.T.V.S.KUMAR (Not Present) Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION For the Respondent No.2 : None appeared. The Court made the following :
ORDER :
Operative part
(Per Hon’ble Sri Bilal Nazki, J) Nobody appears for the petitioner. This Writ Petition had been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the compensation in terms of Award No.B2/681/85, dated 27.2.1989. The learned Government Pleader submits that the compensation had been paid on 27.05.1995. As such, the Writ Petition has become infructuous. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. _______________ 16th December, 2004 BILAL NAZKI, J To 1) The Special Deputy Collector, L.A., (Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad), Municipal Corporation Office, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2) The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3) Two C.Cs., to the G.P. for Land Acquisition, High Court buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 4) Two C.D. copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 16 Dec 2004. The bench was BILAL NAZKI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.