Allowed

Varikuti Venkata Krishna Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Aug 2021WP/15553/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's pending representation within eight weeks. The Court limited its ruling to this procedural direction without adjudicating the merits of the land acquisition claims, citing the Supreme Court's caution against peremptory orders that bypass due process.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 23.12.2019 within eight weeks from the date of the order.

Varikuti Venkata Krishna Rao Vs The State of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.15553 OF 2021

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶4

of India seeking the following relief:

¶5

“to issue a Writ of mandamus to declare action of the respondent No 3 in proposing to construct multipurpose building by dispossessing the petitioner from his agricultural land in Sy No 245/1 admeasuring Ac 090 cents situated at Yakanuru Village Avanigadda Mandal Krishna District without acquiring the same as illegal arbitrary and in violative of Article 14 21 and 300A of the constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the above said land without following due procedure of law.”

¶6

Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court, without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 23.12.2019.

¶7

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue readily agreed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 23.12.2019, if any pending with the authorities.

¶8

In view of the submission of the learned Assistant 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 no service to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

MSM,J WP_15553_2021

representation of the petitioner dated 23.12.2019, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction.

¶13

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 23.12.2019 within eight (08) weeks from today. No costs.

¶14

Consequently miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶15

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶16

Date:24.08.2021 SP

Varikuti Venkata Krishna Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varikuti Venkata Krishna Rao 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chawa.Suguna Vs The State of Andhra pradesh

Venati Leela Mohan Reddy Vs State of Ap

Satti Madhu Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kurella Savitri Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ravi Subbarao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yelisetti Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh