Disposed

N G Srinivasulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Aug 2021WP/15161/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking declarations regarding the resumption of agricultural lands for a Solar Park. While distinguishing a Supreme Court judgment cautioning against mere quick disposal, the Court issued a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the petitioners' specific appeal within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Order directing the 3rd respondent to dispose of the petitioners' appeal (Rc.A.194/LA-V/19/2015) according to law within eight weeks.

N G Srinivasulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.15161 of 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

¶5

“….to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the inaction on the part of the third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool in considering the appeals of the petitioners in Rc.A.194/LA-V/19/2015 filed against the orders of the Tahsildar, Orvakal Mandal in Rc.A.588/2014 dated 17.10.2014 in resuming petitioners’ agricultural lands in an extent of Ac.4.63 cents in Sy.No.609/C, Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.645, Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.645, Ac.4.54 cents in Sy.No.445, Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.212C and Ac.5.00 centsts in Sy.No.236 of Sakunala village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District for establishment of Ultra Mega Solar Park without notice and without paying compensation as illegal, arbitrary and violative of their rights under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the third respondent to dispose of the appeals and pay compensation on par with other land owners...”

¶6

Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court, without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the 3^rd respondent to dispose of the Appeal filed by the petitioners in Rc.A.194/LAV/19/2015.

¶7

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents readily agreed to dispose of the Appeal

¶8

¶9

filed by the petitioners in Rc.A.194/LA-V/19/2015, if any pending with the respondent-authorities.

¶10

Recording the submissions of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition. This Court is conscious that no such direction be issued, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in “ The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh¹ ”, wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do not serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner herself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the Appeal filed by the petitioners in Rc.A.194/LAV/19/2015, I find no other alternative, except to issue such direction.

¶11

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 3^rd respondent to dispose of the Appeal filed by the petitioners in Rc.A.194/LA-V/19/2015, in accordance with law, within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶12

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶13

_______________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 02.08.2021

SPP

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO.15161 of 2021

¶20

Date: 02.08.2021 SPP

N G Srinivasulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N G Srinivasulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. B.Vijaya Vs the State of Ap

Ponangi Lakshmi Venkata Satya Vani Vs The Principal Secretary

Satha Venkata Sai Kiran, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Modiyam Siramanna Dora, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Mahaboob Subhani Vs the State of Ap

H K Jaya Simha Vs the State of Ap