Disposed

M.Maddileti v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Aug 2022WP/2919/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the failure of the respondent authorities to act on a representation regarding the alleged illegal construction of a church within 60 meters of an existing church. The court directed the competent authority to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Joint Collector to consider the representation dated 21.12.2020 and pass appropriate orders after hearing, within eight weeks.

M.Maddileti Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 2919 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not taking action in pursuance of the representation of the petitioners dated 21.12.2020, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are having agricultural lands in Sy.Nos.423/A and 423C/1A of G.Singavaram Village, Kurnool District, and eking out their livelihood by doing cultivation. There is a church called “ABM Church” to the eastern side of the land of the petitioners in Sy.No.423/A. While so, the 5^th respondent-Sangham got land in Sy.No.423/A as gift to it and proposed to construct a church therein during the last week of October, 2020. Then, the petitioners and other residents of B.C. Colony submitted a representation to the Joint Collector on 09.11.2020 bringing to his notice about the illegal construction of a church within a distance of 60 meters from the existing ABM church. As no action was taken by the Joint Collector, the petitioners submitted a representation to the 2^nd respondent on 21.12.2020. The 2^nd respondent directed the 3^rd respondent to cause an enquiry and to take action. However, the 3^rd respondent failed to cause enquiry. Learned counsel would contend the 5^th respondentSangham is proceeding with the construction of church without obtaining any permission from the 2^nd respondent who is the

¶6

¶7

competent authority to grant permission for such construction as per Rule 26 of the A.P.Grampanchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 (for short „the Rules, 2002‟).

¶8

On the other hand, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 would submit that no constructions will be allowed within the jurisdiction of the 4^th respondent-Grampanchayat without there being any permission granted by it. Further, for construction of a building intended for public worship or religious purposes, necessary permission shall be obtained from the 2^nd respondent as per Rule 26 of the Rules, 2002. The learned standing counsel would also submit that if any illegal constructions are found within the jurisdiction of the 4^th respondent, the 4^th respondent will take appropriate action for removal of such constructions.

¶9

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4, it is appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 21.12.2020 and pass appropriate orders after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the 5^th respondent-Sangham, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶11

¶12

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this

¶13

Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶14

____________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶15

17^th August, 2022 cbs

¶16

¶17

HON‟BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶18

Writ Petition No. 2919 of 2021

¶19

17^th August, 2022

¶20

cbs

M.Maddileti v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Maddileti 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Ramesh Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Bepari Mahammad Riyaz Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.Rama Rao Vs The Ap State Irrigation Development Corporation Limited

H Mahesh Vs State of Ap

Palagiri Anil Kumar Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D Subrahmanya Reddy Vs the State of Ap