Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Land Acquisition Act s. 30
Judgment
Cause title
PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO : 2170 of 2009 Between: Vadiala Rajavva, @ Radhavva, W/O. Venkata Reddy, R/o. Kondapur, Chigurmamidi (M), Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Special Deputy Collector, LA Unit, SRSP, LMD Colony, Karimnagar District. 2 YedlaNarayana Reddy, S/o. Harischandra Reddy, R/o. Hanmajipally Village, Bejjanki (M), Karimnagar District. 3 Yedla Tirupathi Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, R/o. Hanmajipally Village, Bejjanki (M), Karimnagar District. 4 Smt. Kanthala Ahalya, W/o. Mysireddy, R/o. Mobilipalem Village, Thimmapur (M), Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S)
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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the 1st Respondent not to pay the compensation for the houses acquired viz., H.No. 2-85 (Project NO. 226); H.No. 2-86 (Proj. No. 227) and H.Nos. 1-78&79 of Hanmajipally Village, Bejjankimandal, Karimnagar District and to refer the dispute to civil court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act; and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BATHINI PAPA RAO GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following :
ORDER:-
Operative part
The learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner prays for permission to withdraw the writ petition. Permission is accorded. Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 13th August, 2009 NOTE: C.C. by 17-8-2009 (B/o.smr)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Land Acquisition Act — s. 30.
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.