Dismissed

Revella Udaya Bhaskara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Apr 2021WP/5790/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by the owner of a shopping complex and function hall challenging the imminent demolition of his building without prior notice. Relying on the respondent's counsel's undertaking to follow due process of law, the court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to adhere to legal procedures before any action.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to follow due process of law before interfering with the petitioner's possession.

Revella Udaya Bhaskara Rao Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶2

Writ Petition No.5790 of 2021

¶3

Order:

¶4

Heard Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for respondents 1 and 2; and Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat.

¶5

The writ petition has been filed seeking declaration that the action of the Secretary of the 3^rd respondent in attempting to demolish structure of the Shopping Complex and Function Hall of the petitioner bearing Door No.9-49 of Ananthapalli in West Godavari District without issuing any notice is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently sought direction to the respondents to desist from interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the said Shopping Complex and Function Hall.

¶6

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the building bearing Door No.9-49 in which he is running a Shopping Complex and a Function Hall at Ananthapalli Village of West Godavari District. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents are making efforts to demolish the said building without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner and without following the due process of law. Therefore, he sought the aforesaid reliefs in this writ petition.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat would submit that the respondents would follow due process of law and thereby prayed to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to follow due process of law.

¶8

¶9

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat on instructions, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to follow due process of law. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶10

_________________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

¶11

01^st April, 2021. Ak

¶12

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶14

Writ Petition No.5790 of 2021

¶15

01^st April, 2021. (Ak)

Revella Udaya Bhaskara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Revella Udaya Bhaskara 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dunna Sankara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Karimulla, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gubbala Venkata Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kota Sithamrna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanuru Venkateswara Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dharmapuri Ravindra Rao Vs the State of Ap