Partly allowed

Pemmireddy Ramakrishna Rao v. The District Collector and Executive Magistrate

Telangana HC13 Apr 2005WP/4157/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the alleged inaction of Panchayat authorities regarding illegal construction on Panchayat land. The court found representations pending and directed the respondents to consider them expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 3 to 5 to consider petitioner's representation, affording 6th respondent opportunity to rebut, and passing appropriate orders within four weeks.

Pemmireddy Ramakrishna Rao Vs The District… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 4157 of 2005

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pemmireddy Ramakrishna Rao S/o. Seshagiri Rao Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The District Collector & Executive Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada.

¶12

2 The District Panchayath Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

¶13

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶14

4 The Sarpanch, Annayyapet Grama Panchayath, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶15

5 The Panchayath Secretary, Annayyapet Grama Panchayath, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶16

6 Tatapudi Prasanna Vijay Kumar S/o. Late Mohan Rao Annayyapet Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents No.3 to 5 not taking any action on the 6th Respondent while making the illegal construction on the Panchayath land (Grama Kantam) is highly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary law. And further direct the 1st Respondent to conduct enquiry on the illegal activity of the respondent No.6 and necessary action be taken on the 6th Respondent and the land may be handed over to the Gram Panchayath, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of the Justice.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. K.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV.

¶21

The Court at the stage of admission made the following :

¶22

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO.4157 OF 2005

¶24

ORDER :

¶25

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents 3 to 5 in not taking action against the 6^th respondent though he has been making illegal constructions on the Panchayat land i.e, Gramakantham land as arbitrary and illegal.

¶26

The petitioner states that he made a representation dated 1-3-2005 to the District Collector, East Godavari District; the District Panchayat Officer (Grievance Cell), E.G. District; the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramachandrapuram and the Panchayat Secretary, Annayyapet Gram Panchayat bringing to their notice the illegal constructions being made by the sixth respondent and the said representations were received in their offices on 2-32005. However, they failed to respond. Hence, this writ petition.

¶27

Since the said representation made by the petitioner is pending before the Concerned Authorities, without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents 3 to 5 to consider the representation

¶28

made by the petitioner dated 1-3-2005 after affording due opportunity to the sixth respondent to rebut the allegations, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶29

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶30

_________________ 13^th April, 2005.

¶31

Note:- Cc in 3 days.

¶32

(B/O) gbs

¶33

¶34

1 The District Collector & Executive Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 2 The District Panchayath Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

¶35

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶36

4 The Sarpanch, Annayyapet Grama Panchayath, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶37

5 The Panchayath Secretary, Annayyapet Grama Panchayath, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶38

6. Two CCs to G.P. for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court of AP Bldgs, Hyderabad (OUT).

¶39

7. Two CD copies.

Pemmireddy Ramakrishna Rao v. The District Collector and Executive Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pemmireddy Ramakrishna Rao v. The District Collector and Executive Magistrate

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

Ch.Venkat Rao, Vs The Divisional Forest officer

Krishnaveni All Castes Sand and Ferry Boat Workers Vs The District Level Committee for Sand

Shettypally Balaiah, Vs The Joint Collector

Lakshmi Kantha, Vs The Commissioner

D.Sukumar, Vs Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Gurrala Narasaiah, Vs The District Collector, Medak District