Disposed

Pericharla Nitya Srivalli v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Jul 2022WP/1910/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenged the rejection of a representation regarding a wall obstructing public access and denying a hearing. The court dismissed the challenge but directed the authority to reconsider the representation. It ordered the respondent to dispose of the matter within six weeks following natural justice principles.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 4th respondent to consider the representation and the impugned order and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

Pericharla Nitya Srivalli Vs the State of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.1910 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Gram Panchayat and Rural Development and Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat for the respondents.

¶4

The present writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, more particularly, the 2^nd respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s representation dated 08.10.2021 basing on the report dated 29.09.2021 issued by the 3^rd respondent with regard to the illegal construction of the 6^th respondent without giving any opportunity of hearing and without examining the relevant records as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land covered by Sy.No.84/1 of BP Kallu Gram Panchayat, Vemulavalasa Village of Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, having acquired the same through a registered sale deed dated 12.07.2016. Since then, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. While so, the 6^th respondent constructed a wall closing the road till the end of his house which deprives the ingress and egress of the petitioner to her house. Then immediately the petitioner made a representation dated 09.08.2021 to the 1^st respondent

¶6

¶7

requesting to take action against the 6^th respondent for closing the road by constructing the wall which was causing much inconvenience to the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the petitioner forwarded the representation dated 09.08.2021 to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents seeking appropriate action against the 6^th respondent. After receipt of such representation, the 2^nd issued a memo dated 25.08.2021 to the 3^rd respondent duly requesting to remove the obstruction on public way and to provide way to public at B.P.Kallur Gram Panchayat, Anantapuram District. In turn, the 3^rd respondent submitted a report dated 29.09.2021.

¶8

In view of the report submitted by the 3^rd respondent, the 2^nd respondent without giving opportunity of hearing as well as submission of any relevant records, the application of the petitioner has been disposed of by observing that the subject road is a private road and no funds were sanctioned by the authorities for laying such road and as the same was formed by the residents of that area. Hence, this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction against the private property which is held by the 6^th respondent and other residents. Later, against the orders of the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner submitted representations dated 30.01.2021 and 28.10.2021to the 1^st and 4^th respondents respectively seeking indulgence of the authorities to set aside the order of the 2^nd respondent on the ground that neither opportunity is accorded nor principles of natural justice were followed. But

¶9

¶10

till date, no action has been taken by the respondent authorities.

¶11

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd and 5^th respondents and learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1, 2and 4 submits that they have no objection to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner.

¶12

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the view to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 4^th respondent to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner.

¶13

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 4^th respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner as well as the orders passed by the 2^nd respondent and pass appropriate orders within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

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

¶15

_ ___________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

Dt.18.07.2022 BSP

347

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.1910 of 2022

¶21

Dated:18.07.2022

¶22

BSP

Pericharla Nitya Srivalli v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pericharla Nitya Srivalli 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

Sri. N. Manasseh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Satyanarayana Murthy, Vs State of Ap

Padileti Chenchamma, W/o. Late P.Venkataswami Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Cherukuri Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C.Koteswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. B.A.M.S.M. Constructions Vs The Superintending Engineer