Dismissed

G. Maddileti Reddy, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Apr 2022WP/23007/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition regarding a stone crusher unit and a compound wall dispute. The Court remitted factual questions to the Gram Panchayat to determine if a new wall is genuine or a pretext for establishing a second unit, directing them to provide notice and hearing before passing an order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by remitting the issues of fact and law regarding the construction of the wall to the Gram Panchayat for determination after providing notice and hearing.

G. Maddileti Reddy, Vs State of Andhra… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

W.P.No.23007 of 2021

¶3

ORDER

¶4

The petitioner is said to be in possession and occupation of a stone crusher unit in Sy.No.309/2 of Banumukkala Village, Banaganapalle Mandal, Kurnool District, since 2008. He contends that he had built a wall around the said land for protecting the machinery in the premises from intruders, trespassers and wild animals. The petitioner had initially approached this Court by way of W.P.No.4060 of 2020 being aggrieved by a resolution that is said to have been passed by the 2^nd respondent cancelling the earlier NOC permitting the operation of stone crushing unit. This resolution of cancellation is said to have been passed on the ground that there is no 40 feet road available from the stone crusher unit and the same is not in accordance with the relevant Government Orders. Subsequently, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of the present writ petition on the ground that the 2^nd respondent was threatening to demolish the existing compound wall which was under repair.

¶5

The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat is that there is no existing wall and the Gram Panchayat was stopping the construction of a new wall which was being constructed without obtaining permission and also that the petitioner was being stopped from establishing a second stone crusher unit without obtaining necessary permissions including NOC from the Gram Panchayat.

¶6

Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Gram Panchayat has been taking contrary stands from time to time and it is not the case of the Gram Panchayat, in the

¶7

¶8

RRR,J W.P.No.23007 of 2021

¶9

pleadings before this Court, that a new crusher unit is sought to be established in the land.

¶10

In view of the arguments advanced by both Sri N. Ashwini Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri G.R. Sudhakar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Gram Panchayat, it is clear that there are various questions of fact which are required to be decided by an appropriate authority.

¶11

The questions that would arise are whether the petitioner is seeking to establish a second stone crusher unit under the guise of constructing a wall and whether such issues had been considered by the Gram Panchayat while objecting to the construction/reconstruction of compound wall, which is said to be in existence, according to the petitioner.

¶12

In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to relegate the entire issue to the Gram Panchayat. For this purpose, it shall be open to the Gram Panchayat to issue a notice to the petitioner in relation to the construction of new compound wall, according to the Gram Panchayat, being done by the petitioner. Upon receipt of such notice, the petitioner shall raise all issues of fact and law before the 2^nd respondent Gram Panchayat, and the Gram Panchayat shall consider all objections raised by the petitioner. It is made clear that the question whether a second stone crusher unit is being established in the land of the petitioner shall also be considered by the Gram Panchayat. Needless to say, any order passed by the Gram Panchayat shall be after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall contain reasons. The Gram Panchayat shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner pending disposal of the above proceedings.

¶13

¶14

RRR,J W.P.No.23007 of 2021

¶15

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶16

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶17

18^th April, 2022 Js.

¶18

¶19

RRR,J W.P.No.23007 of 2021

¶20

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶21

W.P.No.23007 of 2021

¶22

18^th April, 2022

¶23

G. Maddileti Reddy, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Maddileti Reddy, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kummari Venkanna Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kore Ranga Sai Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Veera Bramhendra Minerals Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Subbanna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Durgasi Dharma Rao Vs The Project Director cum Joint Programme Co-Ordinator Mgnregs

Barkath Swayam Sahayaka Sangam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh