Disposed

Pitta Lakshmi Narayana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Jul 2022WP/23455/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a Writ Petition contesting illegal conversion of agricultural land. Finding that authorities had already initiated action against the illegal layout, the Court directed the officials to proceed further in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Proceed further with the action initiated against the illegal layout in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Pitta Lakshmi Narayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 23455 of 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for Panchayat Raj, and also the learned Counsel appearing for the unofficial Respondents.

¶4

The present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in converting agricultural land into non-agricultural land and dividing the said land into plots without any permission or authority, as illegal, improper and incorrect. Further, the 1^st Petitioner claims to have made a representation to Respondent Nos. 2 and 4, and their inaction lead to filing of the present Writ Petition.

¶5

As seen from the docket proceedings of this Court, on 05.08.2011, this Court issued Rule Nisi and called for records.

¶6

A counter came to be filed by Respondent No. 4 – District Panchayat Officer. Paragraph No. 5 reads as under:

¶7

“5. In reply to Para No. 4 of the affidavit it is false to say that the respondents 1 to 4 not responding to the application submitted by the 1^st petitioner herein. The 1^st petitioner being the Upa Sarpanch is fully aware that the complaint has to be lodged with the Secretary to the Panchayat for appropriate and immediate action but the 1^st Petitioner has not filed any complaint with the

¶8

¶9

Secretary of the Panchayat for the reasons best known to him. The respondents 1 and 4 already directed the Secretary of the Panchayat for taking appropriate action and much before the same action was initiated by the Secretary Panchayat. It is further submitted that the Panchayat Secretary issued another notice dated 22.11.2011 directing Chiruvuru Subba Lakshmi to file explanation or else action would be taken against the illegal layout though they received the said notice on 23.11.2011, but so far no explanation filed, as soon as the petitioner filed explanation, the authorities will take further action and it would be initiated against the said illegal layout.”

¶10

A reading of the above paragraph would clearly indicate that, Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 directed the Secretary of the Panchayat to take appropriate action. Pursuant to which, the Panchayat Secretary issued a notice on 22.11.2011 directing one Chiruvuru Subba Lakshmi to give explanation, failing which, action will be taken in accordance with law. This Counter was filed in the month of December, 2011. Neither the Petitioners nor the Respondents are in a position to say as to what happened thereafter.

¶11

Since, the authorities have initiated action against illegal layout; this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the Official Respondents to proceed further with the action initiated, in accordance with the procedure established by law.

¶12

¶13