Chigurupati Srinivasarao, vs Union Of India,
2022 Latest Caselaw 3731 AP

                      HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMRAVATI
                          MAIN CASE NO.: W.P.No.14559 of 2022
                                    PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.No.         Date                                  ORDER                               OFFICE
                                                                                          NOTE
            06.07.2022   DR,J
                                Heard     the        learned     Senior      Counsel
                         appearing for the petitioner/s.

                                Junior    counsel         represented        Sri   O.
                         Manohar       Reddy,        learned     counsel     for   the
                         respondent states that on last occasion itself

arguments were submitted. An essential issue raised by the learned Senior Counsel is about the non-consideration of the issues raised in the objections which were filed as per the statutory provision. Relying upon the judgment in "Nareshbhai Bhagubhai and others v. Union of India and others"1, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the provisions of the Act which is considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are very similar to the provisions of the Act in the present case. Once a detailed objection is filed, the authority concerned had a duty to consider the same and thereafter pass a reasoned order. He submits that the application of mind of the competent authority should be visible. The learned senior counsel points out that in the case on hand, the competent authority has not dealt with the majority of the objections that are raised by the petitioner and merely reiterates the Government stand. The application of mind is not borne out as per him.

This court is of the opinion that prima facie case is made out for the interference at this stage.

Opportunity is also given to the respondents to get instructions.

( 2019) 15 SCC Hence, there shall be an interim order as prayed for restraining the laying of natural gas pipeline from Krishnapatnam Port to Hyderabad, in so far as it covers the land/mango garden of the petitioners in Sy.No.861 admeasuring 24 Arc 00 Sq.meters (Ac.0.60cents) in Khata No.389 (which is owned and possessed by 1st petitioner) and Sy.No.889- 2, admeasuring 54 Arc 03 Sq.meters (Ac.1.35cents), in Sy.No.883-1 admeaasuring 01 Arc 00 Sq.metersm (Ac.0.02 ½ cents), in Sy.No.874 ademasuring 31 Arc 35 Sq.meters (Ac.0.77.5 cents) in Khata No.389 (which is owned and possessed by the 2nd petitioner adn total extent of Ac.2-15 cents), in Sy.No.883-1 admeasuring 01 Arc 00 Sq.meters (Ac.0.02 ½ cents) in Sy.No.889-2 admeasruing 54 Arc 03 Sq.meters (Ac.1.35 cents) in katha No.998 (which is owned and possessed by the 3rd petitioner and total extent of Ac.1.37 ½ cents) of Chakicharla village, Ulavapadu Mandal, Praksaam District A.P. for a period of two (02) weeks.

The respondents are directed to file their counters.

Post after two (02) weeks in the motion list.

Registry is directed to print the name of Sri C.Subhodh, learned counsel for the 5th respondent in the cause list.

______ DR, J Pnr