Disposed

B.Nagaraja Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Oct 2022WP/33954/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding alleged encroachment of government land, the Court disposed of the matter without going into merits. It directed the District Collector to take appropriate action on the petitioner's representation within four weeks. The order permitted notice to other respondents to be issued.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action within four weeks after issuing notice to respondents 8 to 10.

B.Nagaraja Reddy Vs the State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.33954 OF 2022

Between:-

B.Nagaraja Reddy

… Petitioner

and

The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and others

¶9

… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.Ch.Vidyasagar Counsel for respondents 1 to 5 : The G.P. for Revenue

¶10

ORDER :

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5. As the matter is being disposed of, without going into merits, notice to the other respondents is deemed not necessary.

¶12

The writ petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 5 in considering the representation dated 08.8.2021 made by the petitioner ventilating certain grievances against respondent Nos.8 to 10 in allegedly cultivating the

¶13

¶14

Government land, without having any right or eligibility as also giving agricultural electricity connection to them by respondent Nos.6 and 7.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia , submits that respondent Nos.9 and 10 encroached upon hill-lock area of more than Ac.3.00s by rooting out number of trees in an illegal manner and also dug a bore-well without obtaining permission from the concerned Authorities. It is his submission that respondent Nos.9 and 10 have raised mango trees in the said land by converting the said land into agricultural land, without any manner of right. He also submits that the petitioner got issued a legal notice to respondent Nos.6 and 7 not to give electricity connection to respondent Nos.8 to 10 for the purpose of carrying out their agricultural operations in respect of the land in question, but, however, a special transformer was erected without considering the objections of the petitioner herein. He submits that despite making representations to the concerned Authorities with regard to illegal encroachment of respondent Nos.8 to 10 of the Government land, no action has been taken

¶16

¶17

so far, and in such circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

¶18

As seen from the material on record, it would appear that the petitioner made several representations to the concerned Authorities apart from issuing legal notices. It would also appear that a complaint was made to the Vigilance Commissioner of Andhra Pradesh. Be that as it may, as a detailed representation was made to the 2^nd respondent/ District Collector, Chittoor District, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, without going into merits, with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, on the representation made by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after issuing due notice to respondent Nos.8 to 10.

¶19

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

¶20

_________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶21

October 19, 2022. vasu

B.Nagaraja Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Nagaraja Reddy 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

Kalluri Siddaiah Vs D.v.Ramana

Mareedu Vishnu Narayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dheeraj Dama Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Prapalsha Agros Limited, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vaddi Annapurna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Boddu Lalithamma Vs the State of Ap