Disposed

Ravuri Chengaiah v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Telangana HC17 Jan 2005WP/23190/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to stop illegal sand lifting. The Court directed the petitioner to file a complaint before the District Level Committee instead of issuing an immediate direction to respondents.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with direction to petitioner to file a complaint before the District Level Committee regarding illegal sand lifting.

Ravuri Chengaiah Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — RTI and Transparency | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 23190 of 2004

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ravuri Chengaiah S/o.Venkataswamy Tandlam Village, Renigunta (M), Chitoor Dist.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Revenue Divisional Officer Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist.

¶13

2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor Dist.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not preventing and not taking action against the illegal and unauthorized removal of sand from Kasam Thota Kalava of Tandlam village as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to allow the illegal lifting of the sand from the Kasam Thota Kalava in and around the lands of the petitioner covered by S.Nos. 389/1, 390/1, 390/2 and 391 of Tandlam village. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR Revenue

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not preventing and not taking action against the illegal and unauthorized removal of sand from Kasam Thota Kalava of Tandlam Village as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents not to allow the illegal lifting of the sand.

¶19

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

¶20

3. Petitioner claims to be the owner of land, covered by S.Nos.389/1, 390/2 and 391 of Tandlam Village, irrigated through the bore wells adjoining the Kasam Thota Kalava. It is alleged that the sand in the Kasam Thota Kalava is being lifted unauthorizedly by several persons without any lease to a depth of 30 feet, thereby causing damage to the nearby agricultural bore wells of ryots. It is stated that the same had been brought to the notice of the respondents, but no action whatsoever had been taken to stop the illegal lifting of sand.

¶21

4. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that petitioner has not brought the illegal sand lifting to the notice of the District Level Committee and if any such complaint is received, appropriate action would be taken.

¶22

5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to file a complaint before the District Level Committee about the illegal sand lifting. On petitioner filing such complaint, the District Level Committee shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶23

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the admission stage.

N.V. RAMANA, J

January 17, 2005

MRR

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

Copy to:

1 The Revenue Divisional Officer Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist.

¶32

2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor Dist.

¶33

3 Two C.C. s to the G.P. for Panchayat Raj and Rural

¶34

Development, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)

¶35

4 Two C.D. Copies.

Ravuri Chengaiah v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravuri Chengaiah v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

M/s. Karan Woosin Limited a Company incorporated under Vs The Union of India Ministryof Labour New

Mokhamatla Sanjeeva Rao Vs The District Collector

A.Krishnaiah, Vs The District Collector, Chittoor District

Raparthi Hanumantha Rao, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

G.V.G. Krishna Murali S/o late Pulla Rao Vs The Commissioner of Land Revenue and Urban Land

Sanapureddy Radhakrishna Reddy, Vs The District Collector and Chairman