Disposed

Kota Sithamrna v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Apr 2021WP/7285/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was filed by a petitioner alleging encroachment on municipal land and public street by a fourth respondent, causing obstruction. Claiming inaction by municipal authorities, she sought a declaration that such inaction was illegal and a direction to remove the encroachments. The Standing Counsel submitted they would take appropriate action after notice. Consequently, the court dis

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, issue notice to the 4th respondent, and complete enquiry within four weeks.

Kota Sithamrna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT PETITION No.7285 OF 2021

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation representing the respondents 2 and 3.

¶4

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the 4^th respondent encroached the land of the Municipality in Amadalavalasa and made illegal constructions on it. The same is causing obstruction to the petitioner. Therefore, she has submitted a representation to the municipal authorities to take appropriate action for removal of the encroachments. However, no action has been initiated on her representation till now.

¶5

Therefore, the petitioner sought declaration that the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not removing the encroachments made by the 4^th respondent on the public street in front of the house of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Section 192 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act and consequently sought direction to the respondent authorities to remove the encroachments in front of her house by considering her representation.

¶6

Learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation would submit that the municipal authorities would give notice to the 4^th respondent and consider the representation of the petitioner and thereafter they would take appropriate action in

¶7

¶8

this regard according to law. Therefore, he would pray for grant of reasonable time to consider the representation of the petitioner and to take appropriate action on it.

¶9

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation that they would consider the representation of the petitioner and take appropriate action on it, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner and issue notice to the 4^th respondent also and cause enquiry into the matter and take appropriate steps according to law within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or from the date on which a copy of this order is produced by the petitioner before the 2^nd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶11

____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶12

Date : 01-04-2021 ARR

¶13

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.7285 OF 2021

¶16

Date : 01-04-2021

¶17

ARR

Kota Sithamrna v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kota Sithamrna 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

Statutes considered

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

Revella Udaya Bhaskara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanuru Venkateswara Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dharmapuri Ravindra Rao Vs the State of Ap