Disposed

Puti Hanumanth Rao v. The District Collector

Telangana HC9 Dec 2009WP/26900/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the inaction in stopping statue erection on Government land used for last rites, the Court, noting a law and order problem, directed the District Collector to examine facts and take appropriate action.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of. The first respondent is directed to examine facts and take appropriate decision forthwith.

Puti Hanumanth Rao Vs The District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶4

PRESENT:

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.26900 of 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

Putti Hanumanth Rao

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The District Collector, Guntur, Guntur District and two others.

¶12

..... RESPONDENTS

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

The matter is coming up for admission.

¶15

2. Heard Sri Narsing Rao Nandikonda, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, the learned AGP for Panchayat Raj representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 and

¶16

Sri M. Prabhakar Rao representing respondent No.3.

¶17

3. The writ petition is filed praying for the relief of writ of Mandamus declaring that the inaction of the respondents in stopping the erection of the statues of the various political leaders in the said land i.e., 0.6 Cents in Sy.No.114 of Lakkarajugarlapadu village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to direct the respondents to take immediate action as to protection of the said lands from the said political parties and the unsocial elements so as to develop the said land for the temple and facilities for performing the last rites which is done from the years and pass such other suitable orders.

¶18

4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the petitioner along with the other general public of the village already made a representation to the first respondent on 16-11-2009 in this regard. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner is resident of Sattenapalli mandal, Lakkaraju Garlapadu village of Guntur District. It is also stated that this petitioner along with other villagers in public interest approached the District Collector, the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Panchayat Officer and also the other concerned officers requesting them to stop erection of statues of political leaders in Government land. It is also stated that these aspects widely reported even in the daily newspaper also. Further specific stand had been taken that in the village there is a temple of Lord Rama, behind the said temple there is a Government land and a temple of Lord Shiva admeasuring 06 Cents in which there is a well and old structures and these are being used by the villagers for the purpose of performing last rites of the dead persons of the village over the said land from times immemorial. The material relating to the same also had been produced before this court.

¶19

5. It is brought to the notice of the court by

¶20

Sri M. Prabhakar Rao, the learned Standing Counsel representing the third respondent, on instructions, that there is a serious law and order problem in the village.

¶21

6. In view of the facts and circumstances, it appears that though this is not a burial ground, as such, this land had something to do with the performance of the last rights in relation to death persons of the villagers, this court is not inclined to express any further opinion relating to this aspect. In the light of the representation made by the learned Standing Counsel, representing the third respondent, relating to law and order situation as well in the village and inasmuch as it is stated that a representation in this regard already had been made by the petitioner and the other villagers to the first respondent, let the first respondent thoroughly examine the facts and circumstances and also the prevailing situation in the village and take appropriate decision in this regard, forthwith, in view of the urgency pleaded before this court.

¶22

7. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶23

P.S. NARAYANA, J

¶24

December 9, 2009.

¶25

Note: Operative portion by wire at party’s cost. B/o.PN

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.26900 of 2009

¶28

December 9, 2009

¶29

Note: Operative portion by wire at party’s cost. B/o.PN

Puti Hanumanth Rao v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puti Hanumanth Rao v. The District 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

Dr. Edavelli Sailaja, Vs The Government of a.P., Rep by its Principal Special -

Nekkanti Nageswara Rao, Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Avatar Mehar Baba Premalaya Kendram Trust Vs The District Collector

Madduri Santha Kumari Vs The District Collector

Smt. J. Dakshayani Vs Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer

M.Anjaiah Vs B.D.L. Employees Mutually Aided Co.op. Housing