Singamsetti Surya Chandra Rao, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC7 Oct 2010WP/6791/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order permitting use of land for fish tanks as arbitrary and illegal. The court held interference was unwarranted as the matter was pending before the District Collector and directed the Collector to pass an order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Collector to consider the Tahsildar's report and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Singamsetti Surya Chandra Rao, Vs Government of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.6791 OF 2010

¶3

Dated: 07.10.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

1. S. Suryachandra Rao and 3 others. … petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

1. Government of A.P., rep. By its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad., And 7 others. … Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.6791 OF 2010

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 1.2.2010 granting permission to the 8^th respondent to use his land in Sy.No.60/3 to an extent of Ac.1-55 ½ cents situated in Ganapavaram Village and Mandal, West Godavari District as fish/prawn tanks is arbitrary and illegal.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶13

The allegation made by the petitioners that the 8^th respondent had illegally converted the land into fish/prawn tank has been denied in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 as well as the counter-affidavit filed by the 8^th respondent. The 4^th respondent - Tahsildar, Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari District – who deposed to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 stated that in the lands belonging to the 8^th respondent, covered by RS.No.60/3, a fish tank is existing from the year 2001. It is also stated that after examining the representations

¶14

filed by the petitioners herein, a detailed report was already submitted to the Collector, West Godavari on 9.3.2010 and an endorsement to that effect was also given to the petitioners herein.

¶15

Thus it is clear that the matter is pending before the 2^nd respondent – District Collector. Since an appropriate order is yet to be passed by the 2^nd respondent, who is the competent authority, the interference by this Court at this stage is not warranted.

¶16

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the 4^th respondent’s report and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Such order shall be communicated to the petitioners as well as the 8^th respondent herein. No costs.

¶17

_____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 07.10.2010 gbs

Singamsetti Surya Chandra Rao, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Singamsetti Surya Chandra Rao, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

M.Jaya Satyawathi Devi Vs Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devastanam

Maganti Chandramma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

E.Sridhar Vs Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, represented by its

K.Somanarsaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by the District

C. Savithri Devi, Vs The District Panchayat Officer

Alla Gruhalakshmi Vs The Commissioner of Appeals