Disposed

Makkena Vijaya Rao v. The Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Telangana HC18 Apr 2008WP/7771/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners sought relief against encroachment on government waste land in Velagapudi Village and obstruction of water channels. The High Court disposed of the petition, directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to consider the pending representations within three months and take action after giving notice to affected parties.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to consider the petitioners' representations dated 28.3.2008 and take necessary action after giving notice to affected parties within three months.

Makkena Vijaya Rao Vs The Collector, Prakasam… — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7771 of 2008

¶5

Between:

¶6

1 Makkena Vijaya Rao S/o. Venkatasubbaiah,

¶7

R/o. Velagapudi Village, Tanguturu Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶8

2 Boddapati Venkatanarasimham S/o. China Venkaiah

¶9

R/o. Velagapudi Village, Tanguturu Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶10

3 Dola Jyothi Babu S/o. Kotaiah

¶11

R/o. Velagapudi Village, Tanguturu Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶12

4 Dola Praveen S/o. Subbaiah

¶13

R/o. Velagapudi Village, Tanguturu Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶14

5 Chidipothu Ramesh S/o. Yellamanda

¶15

R/o. Velagapudi Village, Tanguturu Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶16

..... PETITIONERS

¶17

AND

¶18

1 The Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole.

¶19

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶20

3 The Tahsildar Tangutur Mandal, Tangutur, Prakasam District.

¶21

4 The Sarpanch, Velagapudi Gram Panchayat, Velagapudi Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam 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 writ, order or direction, more in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 not acting upon the representations dated 28.03.2008 and 31.03.2008 made by the Petitioners and other villagers with a request to

¶24

stop the encroachments and illegal constructions causing obstructions to water channel in the Govt. waste land in Sy.No.90 and 91 of Velagapudi Village, Tanguturu Mandal, Prakasam District as illegal, arbitrary and consequentially to direct the Respondents to stop the illegal and unauthorized structures in the Govt. land of the said village and pass appropriate orders

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.ANANDA RAO

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

The Court made the following :

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not considering and disposing of the representations of the petitioners dated 28.3.2008 and 31.3.2008.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶31

The petitioners claim to be the residents of Velagapudi Village, Tanguturu Mandal, Prakasam District. It is their case that there is a government vacant land situated in S.Nos.90 and 91 of the village being occupied unauthorizedly by some of the villagers and are making constructions indiscriminately and unauthorisedly. The Government land in which the surplus water from the tank as well as rainy water from the village passing through the channel is also encroached by the encroachers causing obstruction for free flowing of water. If the illegal constructions are allowed to be done, the channel for flowing of surplus water to the river will be completely closed down and ultimately the village itself will be inundated due

¶32

to rainy water in the rainy season. To avoid that situation, it is stated that they made representations to respondents 2 and 3 on 28.3.2008 with a request to take appropriate action and protect the interest of the villagers in vein. Hence this writ petition.

¶33

Admittedly, the representation made by the petitioners to respondents 2 and 3 is still pending consideration. Hence, it is agreed by both the counsel to dispose of the writ petition with appropriate directions to the respondents.

¶34

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 28.3.2008 and take necessary action after giving notice to the effected parties. This exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

N.V.RAMANA,J

¶36

DT.18.4.2008

¶37

Note: Furnish CC in one week (B/o) msv

..... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole.

¶43

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶44

3 The Tahsildar Tangutur Mandal, Tangutur, Prakasam District.

¶45

4 The Sarpanch, Velagapudi Gram Panchayat, Velagapudi Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶46

5 2CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of A.P. Hyd (OUT)

¶47

6 2CD copies

Makkena Vijaya Rao v. The Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Makkena Vijaya Rao v. The Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole.

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

Muzafar Azamul Quadri, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Donga Naga Satyanarayana, Satyanarayana Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

The Madhavaram Gram panchayat, rep.by its Sarpanch Vs The District Collector, Collectorate office, Kurnool

B.Purnachandra Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

S. Pentaiah, Vs The State of A.P. rep by its Collector

Raj Kishan Pershad, Vs The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration