G. Jagannatha Reddy, v. The District Collector
Case brief
What is this about?
The court disposed of a writ petition challenging unauthorized road laying on the petitioner's land without acquisition. Without adjudicating merits, the court directed the first respondent to address the petitioner's representation within four weeks after hearing the fourth respondent.
What did the court decide?
Directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation made on 6-11-2009 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks after hearing the fourth respondent.
What the court decided
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
W.P.NO.26319 OF 2009
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings No.A1/223/2007, dated 10-6-2008 for releasing Rs.60,000/- for laying the road in the petitioner’s land in Sy.Nos.399/A and Sy.No.399/AA situated at Thimmapur village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without initiating any land acquisition proceedings and without paying any compensation, as arbitrary and illegal.
According to the petitioner, he is the owner and possessor of agricultural land in an extent of Ac.1-12 guntas in Sy.No.399/A, and Ac.0-02 guntas in Sy.No.399/AA, totaling to Ac.1-14 guntas situated at Thimmapur village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said land is adjacent to the village and it is very valuable land. Keeping the same in view, the local leader (MPTC member) is trying to grab the said land. Aggrieved by the highhanded action of the MPTC member, the father of the petitioner filed O.S.No.121 of 2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. In the said suit, interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner on 5-52005 and the same was in force till 28-4-2008. On 28-4-2008, the Junior Civil Judge dismissed the suit on technical grounds. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed A.S.No.79 of 2008 before the Vacation District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The learned Vacation Judge granted status quo on 19-5-2008. During
the period from 28-4-2008 to 19-5-2008 the MPTC Member and his men created nuisance and also cut several trees of Acacia Arabica and sold away un-authorisedly and also poured some of the waste soil in the petitioner’s land. Therefore, the petitioner gave a complaint to the police. But, the police have not acted upon his complaint. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed WP No.28916 of 2008 and this Court while admitting the writ petition granted interim direction on 30-12-2008 to the Cyberabad Commissioner to consider the petitioner’s representation and take appropriate action as per law. Now, the respondents are laying road in the petitioner’s land and therefore, he made a representation to the first respondent on 6-11-2009 for taking appropriate action in the matter.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of without expressing an opinion on merits regarding the illegality of the road laying proceedings.
Whether the first respondent must dispose of the petitioner's representation regarding the unauthorized road laying in the petitioner's land.
What time limits should be imposed on the first respondent to pass appropriate orders after hearing the fourth respondent.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
First Respondent
- respondent
Third Respondent
- respondent
Fourth Respondent
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP/26319/2009
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court