Dismissed

Akula Satish v. State of Telangana

NGT7 Aug 2024Review Application No. 10/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

National Green Tribunal Southern Zone dismissed a Review Application challenging an order on alleged illegal encroachment of a notified lake. The court held the application lacked merit and no error was apparent on the face of the record.

What did the court decide?

The Review Application No. 10 of 2023 was dismissed as it lacked merit and no error was apparent on the face of the record.

Akula Satish vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶2

Review Application No. 10 of 2023 (SZ) In Original Application No. 100 of 2022(SZ)

¶3

IN THE MATTER OF

¶4

Akula Satish

¶5

S/o. A. Lingaiah, Plot No. 20, Flat No. 402, Hari Sree Avenues 1, Srinivas Nagar Colony, Nizampet, Bachuppally Mandal, Medchel District, Telanagana-500090.

¶6

...Review Applicant(s) Versus

¶7

1. State of Telangana,

¶8

Rep by its District Environmental Engineer, Plot No: A-3, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Kudikadu, Cuddalore District- 607005.

¶9

2. State of Telangana,

¶10

Rep by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad- 500022.

¶11

3. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), Rep by its Metropolitan Commissioner, Swarna Jayanti Complex, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Srinivasa Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad- 500038.

¶12

4. Telangana State Pollution Control Board, Rep by its Member Secretary, A-3, Paryavaran Bhavan, Sanath Nagar Industrial Estate, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad- 500018.

¶13

5. District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana- 501301.

¶14

6. District Collector, Sangareddy District, Integrated Collectorate Complex, Vidyanagar Colony, Pothireddpally, Sangareddy- 502295.

¶15

7. Chief Engineer,

¶16

Minor Irrigation Department, Eram Manjil, Telangana, Hyderabad,

¶17

8. Commissioner,

¶18

¶19

Dundigal Municipality, Near Mandal Complex, Gandimysamma, Mandal, Medchal District- 500043.

¶20

9. Exceutive Engineer,

¶21

Irrigation Division-I Redhills, Hyderabad- 500004.

¶22

10. Exceutive Engineer, Irrigation Department, 4-7-24/3, Sangaredd Bypass Rd, Revenue Colony, Balaji Nagar, Ahmad Nagar, Sangareddy, Telangana.

¶23

11. M/s Modi Builders & Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Edific Homes Pvt. Ltd. Rep by its Managing Director, No. 8-2-120/76/1/B/16, 17 & 18 4th Floor, Ashoka Chambers, Road No.2, Banjarahills, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500034.

¶24

12. M/s JNS Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd, Rep by its Managing Director, H. No. 3-20/14, Plot No. 14, Manvita Brinda, Mallampet Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad- 500090.

¶25

...Respondent(s)

¶26

Date of Order: 7^th August, 2024.

¶27

CORAM :

¶28

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶29

IN CHAMBER BY CIRCULATION

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The above Review Application is directed against the order passed

¶32

by this Tribunal on 16.03.2023. The Original Application was regarding the alleged illegal encroachment of 09 acres of land belonging to Visukavani Cheruvu, a notified lake by the Irrigation Department bearing ID No. 1000/En/02 situated in Sy. Nos. 18, 19 and 20 of Kazipally Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Dundigal Municipality of Medchal-Malkajigiri District of Telangana.

¶33

¶34

Under Rule 22 of the National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011, it is the discretion of the Tribunal to consider the matter in open court if there are materials for detailed hearing and if not the same can be decided on circulation. Since, this Tribunal felt that there is nothing to be argued in detail, the same was decided to be disposed of on circulation as provided under the Rules.

¶35

The ground alleged in the review application is that the Tribunal has wholly relied on the arguments, counter and tabulation submitted by the 11^th respondent and not considered the report of the official respondents.

¶36

The basic principles on which the Review Application could be entertained have been examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of cases. As per the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court a review could be maintainable only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or a discovery of a new or important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him. The grounds raised by the review applicant do not make out such an error apparent on the face of the record nor has brought out any new and important fact which was omitted.

¶37

After hearing all the parties elaborately, after discussions and considering the reports of the official respondents the Original Application No. 100 of 2022 was disposed of. There is no error

¶38

¶39

apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the judgement passed and there is no merit in the review application and nothing to be reviewed on the basis of the ground raised in the review application. The application lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶40

In such circumstances, we feel that there is no case made out for

¶41

the review and hence the Review application is dismissed.

¶42

............................................................J.M.
(Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana)
.......................................E.M.
(Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati)
Internet – Yes/No
All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No
R.A. No. 10/2023(SZ)in
O.A No. 100/2022(SZ)&
7th August, 2024. (AM)

¶43

¶44

Before the National Green
Tribunal
Southern Zone (Chennai)
R.A. No. 10 of 2023(SZ)
Akula Satish
Vs.
State of Telangana and Ors.
R.A. No. 10/2023(SZ)in
O.A No. 100/2022(SZ)&
7th August, 2024. (AM)

¶45

Akula Satish v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akula Satish v. State of Telangana

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

Mrs. Linet Nunes W/O Simon Lobo vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

G Ramalingam vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Domingos Castro vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Prem Mohan Gaur vs National Highways Authority of India

Tushar Goswami vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Sanjeev Jain vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation

Behru Lal Regar vs State of Rajasthan

Sarvan Kumar vs State of Telangana

Jmt Arjun and Adarsh Enterprises vs Medicare Environmental Management Pvt. Ltd.

M Padmavathi vs the Honble Appellate Authority

J.Sathyan Praveen vs the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Tamil Nadu Seiaa Tn

V Ramasubbu vs Member Secretary

Jerome vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

T.M.Umashankar vs Union of India