Disposed

Karakala Madhava Swamy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Oct 2021WP/23632/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking a direction for alternative land allotment. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the pending representation within four weeks, distinguishing it from directly deciding the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 16.07.2021 within four weeks from receipt of the order.

Karakala Madhava Swamy Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.23632 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 more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly 2^nd and 3^rd respondents herein in acquiring the petitioner’s patta land admeasuring Ac.1.85 cents in Sy.No.68/2A1J of Joharapuram Village, Kurnool Urban Mandal, Kurnool District without considering the petitioner’s representation for allotment of alternative land admeasuring 0.63 cents available in Sy.No.71/J of Joharapuram Village, Kurnool Urban Mandal is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the guidelines framed under A.P. Rehabilitation & Re-Settlement Act, and consequentially to direct the respondents to allot the land in favour of the petitioner in view of the District Collector, Kurnool Proceedings dated 23.10.2020 by duly considering the petitioner’s representation dated 16.07.2021 and to pass such other order….”

¶6

Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, Sri R.Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner limited his request to direct the 2^nd respondent to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner, dated 16.07.2021, without touching the merits of the case.

¶7

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents readily agreed to take appropriate action on the representation submitted by the petitioner, if any, pending with the respondent-authorities.

¶8

In view of the submission of 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

¶9

¶10

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 the 2^nd respondent to dispose of the representation, dated 16.07.2021 submitted by the petitioner, I find no other alternative, except to issue such direction.

¶11

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 2^nd respondent to dispose of the representation, dated 16.07.2021 submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

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

¶13

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 20.10.2021

Ivd

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.23632 OF 2021

¶20

Date: 20.10.2021

¶21

Ivd

Karakala Madhava Swamy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karakala Madhava Swamy 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

Kornu Venkata Ramana Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sake Venkataramulu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Thanesha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Varalakshmi at Varahalamma Vs The State of A.P.

B.Vasudeva Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sappa Srinivas, Vs The Government of A.P