Disposed

G. Rajasekhar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Jul 2022WP/5310/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order holds that mere pendency of civil suits does not restrain authorities from statutory duties. The Court directed the 6th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass speaking orders within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 6th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.11.2021 and pass speaking orders within three weeks.

G. Rajasekhar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No. 5310 of 2022

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 6^th respondent in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 30.11.2021 and in entertaining the applications filed by third parties for approval of plan for house sites in respect of an extent of Acs.4.04 cents in Sy.No.411/3 situated in Gangavaram Village, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the aforesaid land is the ancestral property of the petitioner and his family members and without the knowledge of the petitioner, some persons executed sale deeds in respect of the subject land basing on a Will dated 23.04.1994 said to have been executed by one Chengi Munirasappa. Having come to know about the same, the petitioner filed O.S.No.35 of 2022 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner, for injunction. Some cases are also pending before the civil Courts in respect of the subject land. Learned counsel further submits that though the petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.11.2021 to the 6^th respondent not to entertain any application for sanction of layout or permission for construction of houses in the subject land, the 6^th respondent has not yet considered the representation of the petitioner, and on the other hand, the 6^th respondent is entertaining the applications filed by third parties for approval of house plans.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent

¶6

¶7

Nos.1 to 5, and learned standing counsel for respondent No.6 and perused the record.

¶8

Mere pendency of cases before the civil Courts in respect of the subject property, this Court cannot restrain the respondent authorities from discharging their statutory duties. However, as it is the grievance of the petitioner that his representation dated 30.11.2021 is not yet considered by the 6^th respondent, the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the 6^th respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner within a specific period.

¶9

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 6^th respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.11.2021 and pass speaking orders thereon within a period of three weeks from today. No order as to costs.

¶10

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶11

____________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶12

25^th July, 2022 cbs

¶13

¶14

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶15

Writ Petition No.5310 of 2022

¶16

25^th July, 2022

¶17

cbs

G. Rajasekhar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Rajasekhar, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thota Rama Chandraiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Peddisetty Venkata Indravardhan Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lokanadham Rudrakoti, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Puchalapalli Bhakthavala Reddy, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

P. Subhashini Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Srinivasa Rao Vs The District Collector