Disposed

Are Prakesham v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC29 Sept 2021WP/21895/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226 concerning land dispossession, the petitioner requested a direction to dispose of a pending representation rather than decide the merits. The Court agreed and directed the Tahsildar to dispose of the representation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to dispose of the petitioner's application/representation dated 18.06.2021 within eight weeks.

Are Prakesham Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.21895 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 Order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in making efforts in dispossessing the petitioner from his fields to an extent of Ac.0.97 cents of land in Survey No.684/7 at Chandra sekhara puram, kodavalur, kodavaluru Mandal, Nellore District without following the procedure established by law as illegal arbitrary and violation of principles of naturals justice and also violative of Article 14, 16, 19 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for grating of assignment patta and title deeds dated 21.05.2021”.

¶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, requests this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 18.06.2021.

¶7

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue readily agreed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 18.06.2021, if any, pending with the respondents 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

¶9

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

¶10

¶11

Court held that such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do not service to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representation dated 18.06.2021 of the petitioner, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction.

¶12

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the Tahsildar/4^th respondent herein to dispose of the application/representation of the petitioner dated 18.06.2021, in accordance with law, within Eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.

¶13

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

¶14

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶15

Date: 29.09.2021 tm

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶18

WRIT PETITION NO.21895 OF 2021

¶19

Date: 29-09-2021 tm

Are Prakesham v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Are Prakesham 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

Balireddi Chinnammalu Vs the Special Commissioner

Koduru Venkata Swamy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Medukurti Bhargava, Vs The State of A.P

K.Seetha Mahalakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pinneboina.Koteswararao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kante Satyavathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh