Disposed

N.Ramachandra Reddy, v. The Superintendent Engineer

Telangana HC8 Apr 2005WP/7810/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the laying of a road through petitioner land, the High Court held that since objections were under consideration at the stage of admission, the petition was disposed of with a direction to respondents to consider such objections. No merits were gone into.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider petitioner's objections dated 30.03.2005 and take necessary action in accordance with law. No costs.

N.Ramachandra Reddy, Vs The… — 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 EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 7810 of 2005

¶6

Between:

¶7

N.Ramachandra Reddy, S/o.Govind Reddy, Zillela Village, Duvur Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The Superintendent Engineer Panchayat Raj, Kadapa, Kadapa District.

¶11

2 The Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Sub-Division, Mydukur.

¶12

3 The Mandal Revenue officer, Duvur Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶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 may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in resorting to lay a road in between the petitioner property being sy.No.320, 305/1, 337/2 of Zillela village, Duvur Mandal, Kadapa District, without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, & unconstitutional and consequently direct not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner property bearing sy.no.320, 305/1, 337/2 without following due process of law.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.DUSHYANTH REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV.

¶17

The Court, at the stage of admission, made the following :

¶18

ORDER :

¶19

The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the alleged action of the respondents in seeking to lay a road through lands of the petitioner bearing S.Nos.320, 305/1, and 337/2 of Zillela village, Duvur Mandal, Kadapa District without following due process of law as arbitrary and illegal.

¶20

As can be seen from the material on record, on the basis of the representation made by the petitioner dated 30.03.2005 raising objections against the laying of the road, the third respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Duvur, while furnishing his remarks, requested the second respondent-Executive Engineer to take necessary action, vide letter in L.Dis.No.B/111/2005.

¶21

Since admittedly the objections raised by the petitioner are under consideration, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the case.

¶22

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the objections raised by the petitioner in his representation dated 30.03.2005, which was forwarded vide letter of the 3^rd respondent in L.Dis.No.B/111/2005, dated 30-03-2005 and to take necessary action in accordance with law. No costs.

¶23

8^th April, 2005.

¶24

¶25

¶26

1 The Superintendent Engineer Panchayat Raj, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 The Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Sub-Division, Mydukur.

¶27

3 The Mandal Revenue officer, Duvur Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶28

4 Two C.Cs to the G.P. for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).

¶29

5 2 CD copies.

N.Ramachandra Reddy, v. The Superintendent Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Ramachandra Reddy, v. The Superintendent Engineer

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

Vegulla Ammaji, Vs The District Collector

A. Dhan Raj, Vs Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Ch. Nageswara Srirama Prasada Varma, Vs The District Collector

M/s. Ad Age Out door Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Muncipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Shoukat Ali, Vs The Commissioner, Kukatpally Municipality

Gadiraju Radha Krishna Raju Vs The District Collector