Writ Petition No. 27894 of 2010 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 10 Nov 2010
- Bench
- NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
Outcome
Disposed of
With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of at the admission
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
the writ petitioner, without following due process of law. Sri M. Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent Municipality submits that if the writ petitioner does not accord his willingness and consent for utilizing the land belonging to him for road widening purpose, the Municipality would invariably take recourse to acquisition, in terms of Section 42 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, if it is needed for a public purpose. Till then, the Municipality would not dispossess the writ petitioner. In view of this statement, the respondent Municipality will take recourse to the provisions contained under Section 42 of the 1965 Act, if the writ petitioner does not give his consent and then alone, undertake the road widening work, but not otherwise. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of Sri M. Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 10th November 2010 Issue CC in four days.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of at the admission
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 — s. 42.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 10 Nov 2010. The bench was NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO.
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.