Disposed

Kadithala Deevanamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Apr 2021WP/7828/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking a declaration that the respondents failed to act on representations regarding illegal constructions by a third party. The court directed the Nagar Panchayat to consider the representations after giving notice to the alleged constructor within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider petitioner's representations after giving notice to the 3rd respondent and dispose within four weeks.

Kadithala Deevanamma, Vs The State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT PETITION No.7828 of 2021

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

Sri M.Manohar Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the 2^nd respondent – Nagar Panchayat.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent - Nagar Panchayat.

¶5

The Writ Petition has been filed seeking declaration that the action of the official respondents in not taking action on the unofficial respondent regarding illegal construction of structures made by the 3^rd respondent in the property of the petitioner covered by Sy.No.470/14 of Aakivedu Village, West Godavari District, as illegal arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act and rules framed thereunder.

¶6

The petitioner claims to be the owner of a site in an extent of 138 Sq. yards, 78 Sq. yards and 203 Sq. yards, in total 419 Sq. yards, in Sy.No.470/14 of Aakiveedu Village. It is stated that he has purchased the said property under a registered sale deed dated 12.11.1991. It is his grievance that the 3^rd respondent has been making illegal constructions in his property without obtaining any prior approval of plan or sanction from the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 22.03.2021 to the Commissioner and earlier also on 12.02.2021 and 17.02.2021 and the respondent did not take any action on his representations.

¶7

¶8

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner that his representations relating to illegal constructions being made by the 3^rd respondent are not being considered by respondent 2, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the said representations of the petitioner, after giving notice to the 3^rd respondent and dispose of the said representations, according to law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order or from the date on which a copy of this order is produced before the 2^nd respondent by the petitioner, whichever is earlier. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶10

_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶11

Date: 08.04.2021 AKN

¶12

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.7828 of 2021

¶15

Date: 08-04-2021

¶16

AKN

Kadithala Deevanamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadithala Deevanamma, 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

R S Raja Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Vannepanta Venku Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Anne Sri Lakshmi Vs Greater Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

Putta Ramesh Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P Ashok Kumar Reddy Vs the District Collector

Smt. S.Sarada, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh