Disposed

Midthuri Shekar v. The District Collector

Telangana HC15 Dec 2010WP/31448/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, petitioner apprehends village inundation due to proposed godown construction by respondent No.4. Court directed District Collector to consider the non-addressed representation and take appropriate action if satisfied of risk, communicating the decision within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to consider petitioner's representation and take appropriate action if construction causes inundation; decision to be communicated within two weeks.

Midthuri Shekar Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

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

¶2

Writ Petition No.31448 of 2010

DT.15.12.2010

Between:

Midthuri Shekhar

… Petitioner

And

The District Collector, Kurnool District at Kurnool and others.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad

¶11

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 3: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.2 : Smt.Ch.Vedavani

¶12

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering representation, dated 22.11.2010, of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

I have heard Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶16

The petitioner is a resident of Bandi Atmakur Village, Kurnool District. Respondent No.4 is stated to have commenced construction work of certain godowns adjacent to Galeru river. The petitioner

¶17

apprehends that such constructions will block the flow of water collected in the Village from flowing into river Galeru causing inundation of the entire Village. The petitioner is stated to have made a detailed representation, dated 20.11.2010, to respondent Nos.1 and 2. His grievance is that neither of these respondents has responded to the said representation and no action has been taken till now.

¶18

Having regard to the serious concern expressed by the petitioner, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation and take appropriate action in accordance with law, in the event he is satisfied that the construction of godowns by respondent No.4 will cause inundation of Bandi Atmakur Village or any part thereof. The decision taken by respondent No.1 on the petitioner’s representation shall be communicated to the latter, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.40003 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)

¶21

Date: 15.12.2010. VGB

Midthuri Shekar v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Midthuri Shekar 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

Anusuri Satyanarayana Vs The Sub Registrar

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

Mubarakunnisa Begum Vs The District Panchayat Officer

Tera Software Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Ex-Officio Secretary to

M/S. India Telecom Infra Limited (a company incorporated Vs The Grampanchayat, Jayampu Village

Y. Nagendra rao Vs The District Collector OFficer