Agitators also damaged at least seven police vehicles.The Seemandhra agitation in several districts against the Cabinet note on bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh turned violent on Friday, with properties and vehicles being attacked and set on fire, stones being pelted and the police having to resort to lathicharges and teargas to disperse enraged mobs. CRPF inspector-general N.R. In Kurnool, a group of advocates went on the rampage attacking the district Congress office. We are yet to get communication from headquarters. The police later imposed prohibitory orders under Section 144. Protesters threw stones on shops and business establishments in Dharmavaram in Anantapur district and laid siege to the AP Transco substation. Several of his offices and properties of his relatives were set on fire or damaged in Vizainagaram. The situation was serious enough in certain districts for the state government to request the Centre to airlift 25 more companies of the Central paramilitary forces to the state. Satya Degree College run by him was ransacked and Congress offices in the town and in Garividi were damaged.

YSRCP and Telugu Desam party activists pelted stones at each other near Sapthagiri circle when YSR Congress party activists confronted a rally by Telugu Desam party activists. The state police has decided to place the additional forces in Vishakapatnam, Vijayawada and Kurnool. Reddy said, “The state has asked for 25 more companies. Fire tenders that attempted to douse the fire were also attacked. However, in view of the election schedule announced in five states today, it is not yet clear how many forces will be spared for the state. EPDCL employees snapped power connections to Mr Satyanarayana’s house and his Satya cable network in Vizainagaram was set on fire. The police had to fire teargas shells more than 10 times and resorted to caning. Students and youth set properties on fire, damaged buses and attacked properties.” DGP B. The Congress party office at Rayadurg in Anantapuir was attacked and the furniture set on fire. Police forces were rushed to the spot to disburse the mobs. Prasada Rao said that the situation is under control in the region, except for sporadic incidents of violence.PCC president and minister Botsa Satyanarayana bore the brunt of the angry protesters who attacked his properties.

At Jagadamba circle in Visakhapatnam, TDP and YSR Congress activists clashed, forcing the police to resort to a mild cane charge.. Irate agitators pelted stones at the police and a sub-inspector of police received minor injuries. Central government establishments were targeted.K. The police resorted to caning and firing of teargas shells in several parts of Seemadhra region to control the agitators who went on a rampage. Shops and business establishments were closed and vehicles were off the road as life was paralysed in Seemandhra. The north Coastal Andhra districts of Vizainagaram, Srikakulam and Rayalaseema and Kurnool and Nitrile Rubber Hoses Factory Anantapur witnessed the most violence. Normal life was disrupted due to the 72-hour bandh call given by YSCRP and the 48-hour bandh declared by the Joint Action Committees

” Ms Banerjee, who first became chief minister in 2011, added: “I had dreamt of this verdict for so long, for the people of Singur. The court verdict came after several appeals filed by lawyer Kedar Nath Yadav and NGOs like Association for Protection of Democratic Rights, which challenged a Calc-utta high court ruling that found the acquisition to be valid. He said there was no “illegality” on this aspect. Ms Banerjee made the Singur land acquisition issue one of her major election planks, and promised farmers their lands would be returned. The acquisition of the “fertile multi-crop China Semi Rigid Hoses Factory agricultural land” by the West Bengal government was in violation of 1894 Land Acquisition Act, they said.Both judges agreed that the enquiry process, that led to the notification for acquisition, was not properly held and the procedure contemplated under the law was not followed.The bench found fault with the acquisition proceedings and subsequent computation of compensation by the land acquisition collector, and said the claims of the cultivators were not properly considered.”A bench of Justices V. Justice Gowda disagreed with passing a composite compensation award for the landowners.

Farmers who got compensation from the government will not return it as they were deprived of their livelihood for the past 10 years, the court said. Immediately after the ruling, Ms Banerjee termed it a landmark victory and said: “We waited for 10 years for this judgment and it is a victory of the farmers. The court order signifies a major victory for West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee and her Trinamul Congress, which had led the protest against allocation of land for the Tata factory. The court held that the acquisition was not for a “public purpose” and thus the land should be given back to the farmers in 12 weeks.The Supreme Court on Wednesday quashed the acquisition of about 1000 acres of land in West Bengal’s Singur area by the Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee-led CPI government in 2006 for allotment to the Tatas to set up its Nano car factory.

While Justice Gowda held the acquisition of land for a company by taking it away from farmers cultivating it could not be said to be for a “public purpose”, Justice Mishra held the acquisition was valid as ultimately the acquisition was for a public purpose and funds were used from the public exchequer and the factory would have given thousands of people jobs. Now I can die in peace.“Either do as per the law or not at all,” Justice Gowda said, adding that the land acquisition collector did not assign any reasons, and said the state government did not apply its mind in issuing the notification acquiring the land for the company. Gopala Gowda and Arun Mishra, in separate but concurring conclusions, held that the acquisition was illegal and not valid.The Tatas shifted the project to Gujarat in 2008, within two years of getting the land, after violent protests by Ms Banerjee’s TMC. The two judges concurred that the objections by landowners and cultivators were not considered objectively by the state authorities