Petitioner challenged unauthorized road formation and sand transport by a successful bidder on leased land, claiming damages and directing official action. The court held the remedy lies in the civil court, not the writ jurisdiction, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 18646 of 2004
Between:
M.Srinivasa Rao, S/o Akkaiah, R/o Sobhanadrigudem Hamlet,
Adlur Village, Mellacheruvu Mandal, Nalgonda District
..... PETITIONER
AND
rep.by its Convenor, The District Panchayat Officer,
Nalgonda
.....RESPONDENT(S)
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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in forming a mud road through the agricultural lands of the Petitioner and transporting sand thereby causing serious harm to the cotton crop of the petitioner and the inaction of the official respondents in taking action against the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Minor Mineral Concession Rules and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent to take action against the 4th respondent, to
enquire and pay damages to the petitioner and pass such other appropriate order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.JITHENDER REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV.
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Mrs. G.JYOTHI ESWAR
The Court at the admission stage made the following ORDER:
The grievance of the petitioner is that in the auction conducted by the respondents, the fourth respondent is the successful bidder to lift the sand from the leased area and has to lay the roads at his own expenses along with the riverbed. Whereas he laid the road through the lands of the petitioner but the said lands were not handed over to him by the official respondents and continuing the same even after expiry of lease period. To prevent the said unauthorized usage of petitioner’s land by the fourth respondent, the proper course for the petitioner is to move the competent civil court to safeguard his rights on the property and can claim damages, sustained if any, but no writ as can be issued for the reliefs claimed.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
12th OCTOBER, 2004.
kvni
To
4 Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, A.P.High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).
5 Two CD copies.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ court can issue mandatory directions for payment of damages and enforcement of property rights when a civil remedy exists.
Whether the action of forming a mud road and transporting sand by the 4th respondent without handing over the lands is a writ matter.
M. Srinivasa Rao
The District Collector, Nalgonda
The District Level Sand Auction Committee, rep.by its Convenor, The District Panchayat Officer, Nalgonda
The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mellacheruvu Mandal, Nalgonda District
P.L.K.Ramudu
A. GOPAL REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
