Disposed

Chantapalli Surya Kumari W/o Malleswra Rao v. The Collector

Telangana HC15 Nov 2006WP/20578/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition for mandamus to restrain the shifting of Gram Panchayat records, the Court directed the second respondent to consider the request to keep records at the existing premises pending construction of the new building.

What did the court decide?

Directs the second respondent to consider keeping Gram Panchayat records at the premises proposed in the petition while the new building is being constructed.

Chantapalli Surya Kumari W/o Malleswra Rao Vs The… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.20578 OF 2006

¶3

DATE: 1 5 th November 2006

¶4

Between: Chantapalli Surya Kumari, W/o Malleswara Rao, aged 42 years, Ex.Ward Member, Saripalli Gram Panchayat, Uppalagutam Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶5

… Petitioner.

¶6

And

¶7

1. The Collector, East Godavari District, and 2 others.

… Respondents.

ORDER:

Heard the counsel.

¶12

2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus restraining the second respondent from shifting Gram Panchayat office, Saripalli, which was house of Gaddam Pallalamma for more than 12 years without rent, for another 2 or 3 months by which time the panchayat building will be completed in Pursam of the Gram Sabha meeting and General Body meeting which is more convenient for all villagers.

¶13

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj,

¶14

on instructions, states that for completing the construction of new building, it may take few months more. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, would submit that in the meanwhile, atleast for the coming two or three months, the Gram Panchayat records may be continued as it is till the Gram Panchayat office is constructed. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, states that at present also the records are kept in another premises, which is rent free.

¶15

4. It is needless to say that these aspects may have to be looked into in the interest of protecting the records of Gram Panchayat by the concerned officers. However, there should be some reason for shifting the records at this point of time when the Gram Panchayat continued in a particular building for more than 12 years without rent.

¶16

5. Be that as it may, the second respondent to consider possibility or otherwise of keeping of records at the premises in question specified in the writ petition taking into consideration the facts and circumstances. Except making this observation, nothing else can be done at this stage.

¶17

6. With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶18

15-11-2006

¶19

Note: Issue CC by 20-11-2006.

¶20

//B.O.// BSB

Chantapalli Surya Kumari W/o Malleswra Rao v. The Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chantapalli Surya Kumari W/o Malleswra Rao v. The Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Mukarram Kah Trust for Education and Learning Vs The Assistant City Planner, Town Planning Section

Sree Ganapathi Leathers Vs The Health Officer, Municipal Corporation

Kondeti Krishna Murthy Vs The Gram Panchayat, Vella

Bendalam Appa Rao, Vs Bendalam Ram Murthy Naidu

Gram Panchayat Wajidngar Bichkunda Mandal, Vs The Government of a.P., Panchayat Raj and Rural

B.Rameswara Reddy Vs The District Level Sand Committee, rep.by its Chairman