Allowed

G.Srinivasulu Reddy v. The Tahasildar,Bukkarayasamudram Mandal

Telangana HC14 Dec 2010WP/27787/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ filed for mandamus directed the Tahsildar to conduct a comprehensive enquiry regarding an alleged encroachment of a road by an allottee and pass an appropriate order within one month, subsequently disposing of the petition as infructuous after compliance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1 to make a comprehensive enquiry and resolve the issue by passing an appropriate order within one month.

G.Srinivasulu Reddy Vs The Tahasildar,Bukkarayasamudram… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.27787 of 2010

¶3

Date: 14.12.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

G. Srinivasulu and others

¶6

..... Petitioners

¶7

AND

¶8

The Tahsildar, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K. Srinivas

¶11

Counsel for Respondent No.1: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

¶12

Counsel for Respondent No.2: --

¶13

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in conducting enquiry and taking appropriate action against respondent No.2 for allegedly encroaching road laid by the Gram Panchayat concerned to the extent of five feet as illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that they were granted house sites and possessions certificates in respect of plots situated in survey Nos.713-1 and 713-2 of Bukkarayasamudram Village and Mandal, Ananthapur District, on 22.09.2003. They further pleaded that the plots in their possession are bearing Nos.16 to 21 and that in the plan supplied by respondent No.1, a five feet road was shown as in existence. The petitioners have felt aggrieved by the alleged encroachment of the said road by respondent No.2, who was allotted plot No.42. Therefore, they have made a representation on 23.10.2010 to respondent No.1.

¶16

The grievance of the petitioners, as noted above, is that respondent No.1 has not been considering the said representation and taking action against respondent No.2.

¶17

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), on instructions, submitted that the petitioners’ representation is being considered and an enquiry is being held and that prima facie it came to light that the possession certificates granted in favour of the petitioners are irregular and that appropriate action is being taken in this regard.

¶18

Inasmuch as the grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is confined to non-disposal of their representation by respondent No.1, it is not necessary for this Court to deal with the counter allegations made by respondent No.1 in respect of the nature of the petitioners’ possession.

¶19

Therefore, respondent No.1 is directed to make a comprehensive enquiry and resolve the issue raised by the petitioners by passing an appropriate order after such enquiry within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶21

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.35451 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶22

________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶23

14^th December, 2010 GHN

G.Srinivasulu Reddy v. The Tahasildar,Bukkarayasamudram Mandal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Srinivasulu Reddy v. The Tahasildar,Bukkarayasamudram Mandal

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

Koppisetti Surya Chandra Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. T. Hemalatha Vs The District Collecor

Erukala (S.T.) Sangam (Regd.No.4622/93) Vs The District Collector

Anusuri Satyanarayana Vs The Sub Registrar

Deepathi Avenues Pvt.Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mubarakunnisa Begum Vs The District Panchayat Officer