Disposed

Narmala Ramajkee v. The District Collector

Telangana HC7 Oct 2004WP/18242/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition directing the District Collector to consider a representation regarding alleged illegal construction on vacant government land and to pass appropriate orders within four weeks. The Court deferred determining the property nature.

What did the court decide?

District Collector to consider petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

Narmala Ramajkee Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 18242 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

Narmala Ramaraju S/o. appalanaidu, Z.P.School, Ravipalem Village, H.No. Dosuru Gram Panchayat, Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam.

¶12

2 Narmala Chinna Abbayi, S/o. Ramunaidu R/o. Ravipalem Village, H/o. Dosuru Gram Panchayat, Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in not taking any action on the representation of the petitioner dt. 15.8.2004 complaining about the 2nd respondent in trying to illegally and highhandedly constructing shop rooms in an extent of 0.30 cents of vacant site out of Ac.5.65 cents in Sy.No.25 of Gramakantam (Pormboke) Land belonging to Government as per Village Account No.3 of Ravipalem Village H/o. Dosuru Gram Panchayat, Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist., as being illegal, unjsut, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.V.BHAGIRATHA RAO

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶17

The Court made the following:

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

Whether the property in question is a private property or Gramakantam (poramboke) cannot be resolved in the present writ petition. Since the petitioner already made a representation on 15-08-2004 to the District Collector, it is for him to consider the said representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after due intimation to the petitioner.

¶20

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶21

¶22

_____________________ GOPAL REDDY, J

¶23

October 7, 2004 MRR

¶24

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

To:

1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam.

¶29

2 Two C.C. s to the G.P for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)

¶30

3 Two C.D. Copies.

Narmala Ramajkee v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narmala Ramajkee v. The District Collector

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

National Thermal Power Corporation, Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Dande Subba Rayudu, Vs The District Collector

Uppala Sridhar, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its

Potluri Srinivas Vs The Designated Authority Cum Mandal Revenue Officer

Parimi Venkata Krishna Rao , Pedda Venkata Rao Vs The Agent to the Government, West Godavari

Paleti Hanumantha Rao, Vs The District Collector