Disposed

Taanamgari Govindaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented its Principal

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Nov 2022WP/13063/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the inaction regarding a representation for an assignment patta on government/temple land was disposed of by directing respondents to act within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to dispose of the representation dated 10.11.2014 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Taanamgari Govindaiah Vs The State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.13063 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶5

“…to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the 4^th respondent in not considering my representation dated 10.11.2014 requesting to grant assignment patta in my favor for an extent of Ac.3.80 cents situated in Sy. No.846 of Pulimjerivaripalem of Dugarajapatnam Village, Vakadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, non-exercising powers vested with and against to principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the 4^th respondent to grant assignment patta in my favor for an extent of Ac.3.80 cents situated in Sy. No.846 of Pulimjerivaripalem of Dugarajapatnam village, Vakadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District in the interest of justice and pass such other orders…”

¶6

The learned Government Pleader has produced a copy of instructions of the Tahsildar, dated 07.11.2022, wherein it is stated that the land claimed by the petitioner is classified as Government land registered in the name of “Akka Goddess Temple” as per the village records and the land is lying vacant

¶7

on ground with full of sand as the petitioner has not cultivated the land at any point of time.

¶8

It is also stated that the land registered in the name of temple is highly objectionable for grant of assignment as per B.S.O. 15.

¶9

However, it is not stated whether the representation made by the petitioner dated 10.11.2014 is disposed of or any orders have been passed.

¶10

In view of the same, it is suffice to dispose of directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 10.11.2014, if not disposed, within a period of four (4) weeks from the dated of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶11

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

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

¶13

_______________ V. SUJATHA, J

Date: 09.11.2022.

ASH

269

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶18

W.P. No.13063 of 2015

¶19

Date:09.11.2022

¶20

ASH

Taanamgari Govindaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taanamgari Govindaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented its Principal

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

V. Rajani Kumari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary

Eerakkagari Chinnababu S/o E. Bavaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its

Smt.Atakuru Saradamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dasari Chalapathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gowni Ananda Reddy Vs The State of A.P.

Ganta Rambabu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh