Disposed

B.Laxman, v. District Collector

Telangana HC1 Apr 2005WP/7116/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 praying issuance of mandamus to direct authorities to act against alleged unauthorized constructions by individuals encroaching on a public pathway. Court directed authorities to consider complaints and pass orders after affording respondents opportunity to rebut allegations.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents 1 to 4 to consider complaints dated 09.03.2005 and 15.03.2005, afford due opportunity to respondents 5 and 6 to rebut allegations, and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

B.Laxman, Vs District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 7116 of 2005

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 B.Laxman S/o late Sailoo, Occ: Plumber R/o 5-138 Narsingi village, Rajenderanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

2. B.Subash S/o late Anjaiah, Electrician, R/o 5-137 Narsingi village, Rajendranagar, R.R.District.

¶10

.... PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

¶13

2. District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District

¶14

3. Mandal Panchayat Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal,

¶15

R.R.District

¶16

4. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Narsingi village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

5. Srisailam S/o late Shankaraiah R/o H.No.5-136, Narsingi

¶18

village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶19

6. M.Narasimha S/o Balakistaiah, R/o H.No.5-131,

¶20

Narsingi village, Rajenderanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

¶21

District.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

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 Respondents in not taking action against the illegal construction by the unofficial respondents by encroaching upon the public pathway situated opposite to the house of the petitioners herein as illegal and bad and accordingly issue a direction to the Respondents to stop the construction forthwith and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y. Ashok Raj Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development

¶25

The Court at the stage of admission made the following:

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

¶28

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 4 in taking necessary action on the basis of the complaints of the

¶29

petitioners dated 09.03.2005 and 15.03.2005, wherein they have alleged that the respondents 5 and 6 herein, are proceeding with unauthorized constructions in front of the house of respondents 5 and 6 situated at Kummara Basti, 10^th ward, Narsing village, and thereby causing inconvenience to the public.

¶30

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the complaints of the petitioners dated 09.03.2005 and 15.03.2005 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to the respondents 5 and 6 to rebut the allegations made against them, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.

01.04.2005

1. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

¶35

2. District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District

¶36

3. Mandal Panchayat Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal,

¶37

R.R.District

¶38

4. 2 CCs to G.P for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development,

¶39

High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)

¶40

5. 2 CD copies.

¶41

6. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Narsingi village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

B.Laxman, v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Laxman, v. 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

Municipal Workers Welfare Society gudivada, Vs The Commissioenr, Gudivada

Kola haranath, Vs Vishakapatnam Municipal Corporation

M/s. Mc. Dowell and Company Limited, Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Puli Sanjeev, Vs The Regional passport officer

V.Rambabu, Vs The District Collector

Buddana Srisaibabu, Vs Municipal Corporation of Kakinada