Disposed

Pydi Balaraju, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC21 Aug 2012PIL/218/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take action against illegal encroachment on government land. The Court directed the Tahsildar to enquire into the allegations within six weeks, disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to enquire into the allegations and take steps to address illegal encroachment within six weeks.

Pydi Balaraju, Vs The Government of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶7

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.218 of 2012

BETWEEN

Pydi Balaraju.

…PETITIONER

AND

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. T. TEJESWARA RAO

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶18

This public interest litigation is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in taking appropriate action against the persons, who illegally encroached the Government land in Sy.No.113, 113(4), 113(7A) of Kusalapuram village, Eatcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District, without there being any permissions from the revenue authorities or from the Government of Andhra Pradesh as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

¶19

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in this matter and we have also heard the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the state authorities.

¶20

3. After perusing the affidavit wherein it is stated that the fourth respondent has not taken any action in spite of the direction of the second respondent while endorsing the representation of the petitioner dated 09.04.2012, We only direct the Tahsildar, fourth respondent, in the matter, to make enquiry into the allegations made in the petition and to take steps, in the matter, in accordance with law preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

In view of the above, this public interest litigation stands disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

_________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶23

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶24

August 21, 2012 DSK

Pydi Balaraju, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pydi Balaraju, v. The 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Janardhan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Raghunandan Yadav Vs The Principal Secretary to the Government

R. Nageswara Rao, Vs The Government of A.P.

G.Veeranarayana Reddy, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

G. Bala Raju, Vs The Government of A.P.

Padamati Subhas Chandra Bose Babu Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

M. Adinarayana Vs The District Collector

The Society Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Childrens Park Vs The District Collector

Goparaju Krishna Venamma, Vs Sri Kondandaramanjaneya Swamy Temple

T. Murali Mohan Rao, Vs A.P. State Financial Corporation

Smt. K. Laxmamma, Died per Lr Vs The Municipal Administration Department

Kotiparthuni Vishwanatham Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

D. John Samuel S/o. David Vs Chairman/Executive Director, Ntpc, Mch Complex

M.A. Wadood Vs The Commissioner