Allowed

Nelakuri Kondaiah v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Oct 2023WP/14053/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the inaction of authorities regarding unauthorized construction by the 8th respondent. Upon counsel's assurance that further action would be taken, the petition was disposed of with a directive to the Panchayat Secretary to act within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Panchayat Secretary to take further course of action against the unauthorized construction within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

Nelakuri Kondaiah Vs the State of Ap — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

RC,J W.P. NO. 14053 of 2023

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 14053 of 2023

¶5

ORDER:

¶6

The short grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are not taking any further course of action against the 8^th respondent pursuant to the notice issued by them in relation to the unauthorized construction that is being made by the 8^th respondent.

¶7

Heard Ms.Ramani Annam, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G. Venkata Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ZPP & MPP and Gram Panchayat.

¶8

Ms. Ramani Annam, learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration would submit that pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner against the unauthorized construction being made by the 8^th respondent, the authorities, though issued notice, did not take any further action against the unauthorized construction of the 8^th respondent. Hence, the writ petition is filed and prayed to allow the same.

¶9

On the other hand, Sri G. Venkata Reddy, learned Standing

¶10

Counsel, would submit that the Panchayat Secretary is contemplating to

¶11

¶12

RC,J W.P. NO. 14053 of 2023

¶13

take steps against the 8^th respondent in accordance with law in pursuance of the notice and hence nothing remains for consideration in this writ petition and hence prayed to dispose of the same.

¶14

To the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶15

prayed to dispose of the writ petition by recording the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel.

¶16

Perusal of the material would indicate that this Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of the respondent authorities pursuant to the notice issued by the authorities to the 8^th respondent against his unauthorized construction. Now the learned Standing Counsel brought to the notice of this Court that the Panchayat Secretary would take steps against the construction of the 8^th respondent in accordance with law pursuant to the notice issued. by them dated 28.04.2023. In view of the same, nothing remains for consideration in this Writ Petition. Since no positive orders are being passed affecting the rights of the unofficial respondent, it is unnecessary to order notice to the respondents and keep this matter pending inviting their counters.

¶17

¶18

RC,J W.P. NO. 14053 of 2023

¶19

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing

¶20

the concerned Panchayat Secretary to take further course of action against the unauthorized construction, if any, made by the 8^th respondent, in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.

¶22

_________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 6^th October, 2023 RR

¶23

¶24

RC,J W.P. NO. 14053 of 2023

¶25

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.14053 of 2023

¶27

6^th October, 2023

¶28

Nelakuri Kondaiah v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nelakuri Kondaiah 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

Lakshmi Gonela Vs The National Commisioner for scheduled Castes

Kadiyala Prakash Babu, Vs National Commission for Scheduled Castes

M/S. Sr Efifice Private Limited Vs the Andhra Pradesh Education and Welfare Unfrastructure Development Corporation

G. Rama Krishnappa, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mandapati Udaya Harika Vs Praveen Prakash,I.a.S

Ippili Appala Naidu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh