Disposed

Muntha Sai Babu v. Joint Collector

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Aug 2019WP/21669/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking removal of encroachments from a burial ground in Chirala. Directing removal, the court held the land recorded as burial ground and directed the 2nd respondent to take action.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent-authority to take action for removal of encroachments from the burial ground in Sy.No.7/6, Vikuntapuram, Chirala Municipality.

Muntha Sai Babu Vs Joint Collect… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.21669 of 2011

¶4

ORDER: {Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice C. Praveen Kumar}

¶5

The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not taking steps for removing encroachments from burial ground situated in Sy.No.7/6 of Municipal Old Ward No.9, which was re-numbered as Ward No.26, Vikuntapuram of Chirala Municipality, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of G.O.Ms.No.715 dated 16.7.2009, and consequently, to direct the respondents to remove the encroachments, if any, in Sy.No.7/6 of Municipal Old Ward No.9 (new Ward No.26) Vikuntapuram of Chirala Municipality.

¶6

The petitioner is a Senior Citizen of Chirala. According to him, Gowda Samkshema Sangam was formed in the year 1990 with an object to protect the interests and to take up welfare measures for the poor and needy among the community. It is stated that the then British Rulers earmarked the land, which is behind N R & P Municial High School, Chirala as burial ground. However, at the time of construction of the school building, the British rulers shifted the burial ground by allotting land admeasuring Ac.0-75 cents in Sy.No.7/6 of Municipal Old Ward No.9. Since then, the community people are using the said land as burial ground. While so, at the instance of local leaders, the said land was encroached upon. In spite of bringing the same to the notice of respondents Nos.2 and 3, there was no response. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶7

No counter-affidavit is filed though the writ petition is of the year 2011. In view of the grievance of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to

¶8

¶9

refer to the relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.715 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 16.7.2009, which reads as under:

¶10

“The existing burial grounds must be protected from encroachments by arranging fencing with the help of local financial contributions by the communities. The assistance of Advisory Committees may also be sought to obtain community participation in providing such fencing and beautification.”

¶11

Reading of the above G.O. would indicate that burial grounds must be protected from encroachments by a fence. The town survey field register placed on record would show that the subject land is a burial ground. Having regard to the above, we are of the view that when the subject land is recorded as burial ground and if there are any encroachments on the said land as alleged, the 2^nd respondent-authority shall take action for removal of such encroachments, in accordance with law, at the earliest.

¶12

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pendin, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

_____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ACJ

¶14

_________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

¶15

Dated: 5.8.2019 Nn

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶18

AND

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.21669 of 2011

¶21

(Order delivered by the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice C. Praveen Kumar}

¶22

Dated: 5.8.2019

¶23

Muntha Sai Babu v. Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muntha Sai Babu v. Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Chegudi Ashok Babu alias Joshua Daniel, Vs Karunakar Sugguna

S Ajay Nagendra Babu Vs the Project Director

Kolli Manikanta, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Sec Services, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Mercury Marvel Hospitalities Pvt., Ltd., Vs The State of Ap

P.Goutham Reddy, Vs The State, rep.by the Principal Secretary to Government of