Disposed

Pulivarthi Pullaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Jan 2024WP/330/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition without going into merits, directing the Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, to take necessary action on the petitioner's representation within six weeks after giving due opportunity to the Gram Panchayat.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.4 to take necessary action on the petitioner's representation within six weeks.

Pulivarthi Pullaiah, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.330 OF 2024

Dt.08.1.2024

Between:-

Pulivarthi Pullaiah

… Petitioner

and

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, and others

¶10

… Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Mr.Y V S S Dharaneesh Counsel for respondents : The G.P. for Panchayat Raj Mr.K.Srinivasulu Reddy

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.K.Srinivasulu Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6/Gram Panchayat. Notice to the respondent No.7 is deemed not necessary, as the matter is being disposed of, at the stage of admission, without going into merits of the case.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, inter alia submits that the petitioner is the owner of

¶14

¶15

the property of an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Survey No.501/1 of Thopugunta Village and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. He submits that the respondent No.7, who is the owner of the property of an extent of Ac.0.46 cents in Survey No.501/1 of Thopuguntal Village, had constructed a function hall in the name and style of Umamaheswari Kalyana Mandapam in the said property. While stating that there are civil disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No.7, learned counsel would further submit that the respondent No.7 constructed the Kalyana Mandapam without obtaining permission from the concerned Authorities and operating the same. He submits that though the said aspect has been brought to the notice of the Authorities concerned, no action has been taken by them so far. He submits that under the said circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition.

¶16

At the time of considering the matter, learned counsel

¶17

for the Gram Panchayat seeks time to secure written instructions, however, considering the relief sought for in the writ petition, this Court, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, deems it appropriate to dispose of the same with a

¶18

¶19

direction to the respondent No.4 to take necessary action on the petitioner’s representation dated 11.12.2023 in accordance with Law, after giving due opportunity to the respondent No.7, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

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

¶21

________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J January 08, 2024. vasu

Pulivarthi Pullaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pulivarthi Pullaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indhukuri Murali Krishnam Raju Vs the State of Ap

M/s. Rhino Engineers Private Limited Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. Rhino Engineers Private Limited Vs the State of Andha Pradesh

Gudibandla Sanjeeva Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Udatha Sukumar Vs Udatha Rajani

G.Eswara Raju, Vs State of A.P.