Dismissed

Podilapu Krishna Prasad v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Apr 2022WP/23830/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed challenging a notice directing the petitioner to stop construction of a building. Court disposed of the petition, directing no further construction until necessary permissions are obtained.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; no further construction directed until necessary permissions from Gram Panchayat and Project Officer-ITDA are obtained.

Podilapu Krishna Prasad Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.23830 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner received proceedings No.6 of 2020 dated 03.10.2020, issued by the 7^th respondent, calling upon the petitioner, to stop construction of a building, in front of the Government High School, Seethampet Panchayat. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition.

¶4

It is the case of the petitioner that he was constructing a building in his own land, admeasuring Ac.0.76 cents and the notice of the 7^th respondent directing the petitioner to stop all further construction, is arbitrary and high handed.

¶5

This Court by an order dated 15.12.2020 had directed that status quo should be maintained in all respects.

¶6

The 7^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner did not obtain any building permission from the Gram Panchayat and further that the petitioner, who is a non tribal, require to obtain the necessary permission from the Project Officer-ITDA before any constructions can be carried out.

¶7

Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application for building permission is being made to the Gram Panchayat and a further application for

¶8

¶9

obtaining permission from the Project Officer, ITDA is also being filed before the authorities.

¶10

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to obtain necessary permission before undertaking any further construction of the building. It is further directed that the 7^th respondent shall take steps to ensure that no further construction shall be carried out by the petitioner until necessary clearances and permissions have obtained by the petitioner for undertaking such a construction. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

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

¶12

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶13

06.04.2022 RJS

¶14

¶15

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.23830 of 2020

¶17

06.04.2022

¶18

RJS

Podilapu Krishna Prasad v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Podilapu Krishna Prasad v. the State of Ap

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

Potla Venkateswarlu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Parasa Srinubabu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Sudha Restaurant and Bar Vs the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

M/s. Sreenivasa construction corporation Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Jmc Constructions Pvt, Ltd, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Sudhakar Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh