Dismissed

ChagantiTimmareddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Jan 2023WP/7798/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners challenged permission granted for de-siltation of sand from river Godavari affecting agricultural lands. The High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous because the lease period had expired and expert committee reports were awaited.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. Interim orders, if any, were deemed vacated.

ChagantiTimmareddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.7798 of 2020

¶3

Chaganti Timmareddy, S/o Gurava Reddy, age:59 years, R/o.D.No.3-160, Bhadrirajupalem, Krishna District and another.

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries, Infrastructure, Investment & Commerce Department (Mines-II), Secretariat, Amaravathi, Velagapudi, Guntur District and 21 others.

¶7

….Respondents

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

In spite of several adjournments, there is no

¶10

representation for the petitioners.

¶11

However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the matter becomes infructuous as no cause survives for further adjudication.

¶12

The petitioners filed this writ petition questioning the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 17 herein in granting permission to the respondent No.18 for de-siltation of the sand from the bed of river Godavari vide proceedings No.3374/sand/2019 dated November, 2019 issued in the

¶13

name of the respondent No.18 is contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules and provisions of

¶14

¶15

G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 04.09.2019 and sought for

¶16

consequential direction to the respondents in permitting the APMDC which is the 7^th respondent herein to take any steps or to grant any permission for de-siltation of the sand from the agricultural lands bearing Sy.Nos.208/1, 208/2, 209/2, 209/3 over an extent of Ac. 1953 cents of Sithanagaram Village and Sitanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶17

The learned Government Pleader for Irrigation Department relying upon the counter affidavit of the 10^th respondent submits that the lease period expired on 01.11.2020 and in fact no permissions were accorded as the matter was referred to the expert committee constituted by the District Collector and Chairman and the report of the Expert Committee is awaited. In the meanwhile, the lease period has also expired.

¶18

Recording the said submission this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. Interim orders, if any, deemed to have been vacated. No costs.

¶19

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶20

_______________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶21

20.01.2023 PGT

ChagantiTimmareddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

ChagantiTimmareddy, 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

Alluru Venkata Subba Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Singampalli Siva Rama Krishna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Varanasi Surya Prakash Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Singampalli Siva Rama Krishna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Sri .Sai Teja Projects Pvt. Ltd, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanakapudi Abraham Vs the State of Ap