Disposed

Gorle Atchannaidu S/o Appala Naidu v. The Mandal Revenue Officer

Telangana HC24 Feb 2011WP/9579/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition challenging the inaction regarding illegal construction on canal land, the Court noted that authorities had issued eviction notices under a state Act. The petition was disposed of directing the first respondent to complete the eviction process within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the first respondent to take action in accordance with law and complete the exercise of eviction within a period of three months.

Gorle Atchannaidu S/o Appala Naidu Vs The Mandal Revenue… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9579 OF 2006

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3, in not considering the representation of the petitioner and other villagers dated 20.04.2006 for stoppage of illegal construction by the fourth respondent on the culvert across the canal and shopping complex on the feeding channel of Kari Cheruvu and Chowdu Cheruvu of Pathasabbavaram Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶4

In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent it is stated that the fourth respondent had taken up illegal construction; on receipt of the complaint from the petitioner, a notice was issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Sabbavaram to stop such construction; a compliant was also lodged against the fourth respondent to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram; the petitioner himself had illegally constructed a shopping complex in Sy.No.286 over the Kondagedda without any right as the said land was government land; and the petitioner was liable to be evicted from the said land in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶5

On being asked what action the respondents had taken against the fourth respondent, Learned Government Pleader for Revenue sought time. Today, Learned Government Pleader has placed before this Court a copy of the notice dated 19.02.2011 issued under Section 7 of the Act for eviction of the fourth respondent from the land in question. Learned Government Pleader would state that action would be taken against the petitioner also for his illegal construction over government land.

¶6

In the light of the specific averment in the counter-affidavit that the fourth respondent had resorted to illegal

¶7

construction over the canal and as the respondents have already initiated action to evict the fourth respondent by issuing notice under Section 7 of the Act, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to take action in accordance with law, and complete the entire exercise of eviction, within a period of three months from today.

¶8

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

¶9

RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J

¶10

Date:24.02.2011 Usd

Gorle Atchannaidu S/o Appala Naidu v. The Mandal Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gorle Atchannaidu S/o Appala Naidu v. The Mandal Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Subba Rao Vs MD Union Bank of India Mumbai and 2 Others

Shaik Mahboob Ali Vs Mokkapati Uma Kameshwara Rao

M/s. Sri Madhavi Seva Sahakara Sangam Vs The Commissioner

The General Manager, Sri Vijaya Visakha Dist-Co-Op. Vs T.Krishna Murthy

Varala Somaiah Vs Land Acquisition Officer (Rdo)

R. Brahamaiah, S/o. Veeraiah, Vs The District Collector