Disposed

Shaik Parveen v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Feb 2024WP/9866/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Panchayat notice directing removal of alleged illegal constructions including a Swachh Bharat toilet. The court disposed of the petition directing the Panchayat Secretary to consider the petitioner's pending explanation objectively and pass a reasoned order after hearing, restraining coercive steps meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Panchayat Secretary to consider explanation and pass reasoned order after hearing; no coercive steps against subject structures till then; no costs.

Shaik Parveen Vs the State of Ap — Municipal and Town Planning | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

\ \

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 9866 OF 2020 ^

¶7

Between:

¶8

Shaik Parveen, S/o Subba Reddy Age 57 Address R/o.D.No.1-67 (New D.No.1-84), Madhavarampalle Village, Valmikipuram Mandal, Chittoor District ...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Home) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur^District.

¶11

The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District at Chittoor 3. The SHO, Vayalpad, Chittoor District.

¶12

The Panchayat Secretary, Madavarampalli, Grampanchayat. Valmikipuram Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No.3 and 4 illegal trying to demolish the toilet attached to the petitioner house mentioned in notice through RCC No.Notice/1/2p2 0, DT13-05-2020 contrary to thp Government of India privided financial aid under Swacha Bharat Scheme for construction of Bathroom and Latrine as arbitrary, illegal against Art.19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be

¶17

pleased to direct the Respondents No.3 & 4 not to demolish the toilet attached to Petitioner house mentioned notice in RCC No.Notice/1/2020 DT; 13-05-2020.,.-

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Nagaraju Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Home &

¶19

: Sri Nagaraju Naguru^

¶20

Sri G.Venkata Reddy Gajjala .

¶21

The Court made the following

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶23

THE H0N’B;.E SRI JUSTICE SUBBA RBDDY SATTI

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.9866 of 2020

¶25

Shaik Parveen, W/o Subba Reddy, aged about 57 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o D.No. 1-67 (New D.No. 1-84), Madhavarampalle Village, Valmikipuram Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶26

... Petitioners

¶27

Versus

¶28

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Home) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District and three others.

¶29

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Nagaraju Naguru Counsel for respondents : GP for Home and Sri G. Venkat Reddy, standing counsel

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Challenging the notice issued by respondent No.4 vide RCC No. Notice/1/2020 dated 13.05.2020, directing the petitioner to remove illegal constructions, the above^writpetition is filed.

¶32

The grievance of the petitioner is that the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.4 issued notice dated 13.05.2020 pointing out violations said to have been made by the^petitioner

¶33

Page 2 of 4

¶34

SRS, J W.P.No.9866 of 2020

¶35

by encroaching poramboke land, for which petitioner^submitted explanation on 19.05.2020. However, without considering^the petitioner’s explanation, the authorities are proceeding^further. Hence, above writ petition.

¶36

Heard Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Hari Priya, learned counsel representing^Sri G. Venkata Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.4.

¶37

This Court, by order dated 11.06.2020 > directed respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to demolish the toilet attached to petitioner’s house as mentioned in the notice impugned.

¶38

The interim order granted on 11.06.2020 is subsisting^as on today. The explanation dated 19.05.2020 submitted by the petitioner is pending consideration. In view of the same, without going into other disputed questions of fact, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Secretary of respondent No.4 to consider the petitioner’s explanation objectively and pass a reasoned order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

?•I4 ¥ 5'

Page 3 of 4

SRSJ W.P.No.9866 of 2020

¶43

¶44

Till then respondents shall not take any coercive stepsⁱⁿ

¶45

respect of the subject structures/constructions. No^costs.

¶46

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitipns, if any,^shall

¶47

stand dismissed.

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR A/^ SECTION OFFICER

¶50

To,

¶51

The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, (Home) Department, -

¶52

Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶53

The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District^atChittoof

¶54

The SHO, Vayalpad, Chittoor District.

¶55

The Panphayat Secretary, Madavarampalli, Grampanchayat, Valmikipuram Mandal, Chittoor District. (Addressee^nos.1to4

¶56

RPAD)

¶57

One CC to Sri Nagaraju Naguru, Advocate [OPUC]

¶58

One CC to Sri Venkata Reddy Gajjala, Standing Counsel [OPUC]

¶59

Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶60

Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶61

Two CD Copies

cvss

HIGH COURT

DATED:15/02/2024

ORDER

O
/v^U "
*4,
I? I 0 JUL 202^1 OSTS
CuErenj- 8see£g0n €01
-cC't.,A

¶67

WP.No.9866 of 2020

¶68

DISPOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Shaik Parveen v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Parveen 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yannam Reddy Koti Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Alla Rajani Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

U.Kumari Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Paritala Srinivasa Rao Vs Sri Gopal Krishna Dwivedi IAS

J. Kondala Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Gorle Chinnathalli Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh