Disposed

MenniRatnaji Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Aug 2021WP/16184/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court refused to look into the merits of a writ petition challenging land dispossession. Citing a Supreme Court precedent, the Court directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the petitioners' specific representation dated 17.06.2021 within four weeks, as argued by counsel.

What did the court decide?

Direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the petitioners' representation dated 17.06.2021 within four weeks.

MenniRatnaji Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.16184 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶5

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in conducting an enquiry by considering the representation given by the petitioners vide dated 17.06.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and high handedness and consequently to direct the respondents herein not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands in R.S.No.140 without following due process of law and pass such other orders....”

¶6

Though the petitioners made several allegations against the respondents, during the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 17.06.2021 submitted by the petitioners, without touching the merits of the case.

¶7

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents readily agreed to dispose of the representation dated 17.06.2021 submitted by the petitioners, if any pending with the respondent authorities.

¶8

In view of the submission of Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition.

¶9

This Court is conscious that no such direction be issued in view

¶10

of the judgment of the Apex Court in The Government of India v.

¶11

P.Venkatesh¹ , wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may be

¶12

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

¶13

¶14

passed 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 himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representation dated 17.06.2021 submitted by the petitioners, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction.

¶15

In the result, Writ Petition is disposed of , directing the 2^nd respondent to dispose of representation dated 17.06.2021 submitted by the petitioners, in accordance with law, within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶16

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

¶17

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 05.08.2021

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO.16184 OF 2021

¶23

Date: 05.08.2021

¶24

MenniRatnaji Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MenniRatnaji Rao v. 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

M. Syed Khaderpeer, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bellamkonda Surya Venkata Satyavathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sk. Madeena, Vs The State of A.P.

Veluru Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Majjari Gangadhar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Nalavayi Muni Rami Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh