Disposed

Jadi Narsaiah v. The Government of Ap., rep.by its PRincipal Secretary

Telangana HC24 Sept 2012PIL/76/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner challenged the construction of a Police Station on land used as a playground without prior permission. The Court found the land was never officially earmarked as a playground and allowed the construction for security reasons, directing authorities to find alternative plots for the playground.

What did the court decide?

No costs. Respondent No.4 directed to find alternative land for a playground for local children and young residents at the said area.

Jadi Narsaiah Vs The Government of Ap., rep.by its… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶2

AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.76 OF 2012

¶4

DATED:24.9.2012

¶5

Between: Jadi Narsaiah … Petitioner And The Government of A.P., Rep. by is Principal Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh (Revenue) Secretariat Hyderabad and others … Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶8

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGAITON NO.76 OF 2012

¶9

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

¶10

This public interest litigation is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.6 to 8 in constructing Madaram Police Station in the play ground in an extent of Ac.4.20 guntas in Sy. No.669/6/1 of Tandur Mandal Head Quarters, Adilabad District, without prior approval and permission from respondent Nos.1 to 5, as arbitrary and illegal, and for consequential directions.

¶11

The grievance of the petitioner is that the above said land was lying vacant and the same was being used as play ground for the last several years. A request was made by respondent No.7 – Superintendent of Police for allotment of the land in Tandur Village for construction of Madaram Police Station building, quarters for staff and Circle Inspector office-cum-residence. The Sub-Collector, Asifabad, on getting inspection of the land and report from revenue officials, directed respondent No.4 - Tahsildar to handover possession of the land to the police authorities. Accordingly, possession of the land was handed over to the Circle Inspector of Police, Tandoor, under cover of a panchanama. It is further stated that the District Collector, Adilabad, has already ratified the action taken for handing over the possession as above. Questioning the action of the respondents, petitioner filed the present public interest litigation.

¶12

A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.4 – Tahsildar, on his

¶13

behalf and on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, stating that the subject land was never earmarked as play ground by Government at any point of time. Further more, the Gram Panchayat, Tandur, has also passed a resolution on 28.3.2010 under the Chairmanship of Sarpanch with all ward members that there is no objection for construction of the Police Station and staff quarters in the land.

¶14

Respondent No.7 – Superintendent of Police, Adilabad District, has filed a counter affidavit stating that on the request of the police authorities, considering the security point of view and suitability, the land in question was allotted for the purpose of construction of the Police Station and staff quarters and accordingly construction work has been taken up.

¶15

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶16

The only allegation of the petitioner is that the Gram Panchayat, Tandur, recognizing proper use of the land in question, has passed an unanimous resolution dt.3.10.2006 presided by the then Sarpanch that the land belonging to the Government of Andhra Pradesh situated behind the cinema theatre and surrounded by residential houses and schools, which was allotted as play ground for children, should be used for the purpose of sports and games only, and it should not be allotted for any other institution, and hence the Police Station, staff quarters and Circle Inspector office-cum-residence should not be constructed at the said place.

¶17

After considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears to us that the subject land was never earmarked as play ground at any point of time. The authorities on considering the requirement and suitability, allotted the said land for construction of Police Station and staff quarters. Hence, we feel that for the better and well-equipped security reasons, construction of Police Station and staff quarters on the said land cannot be interfered with by this Court in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

However, considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and further the submissions on behalf of respondent No.4 as has been made before us, respondent No.4, considering the feasibility and suitability, shall find out an alternative land which can be equated with that of the land in question, for the purpose of play ground for the local children and young residents at the said area, and take necessary steps in the matter.

¶19

The public interest litigation is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶20

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶21

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 24.9.2012 bnr

Jadi Narsaiah v. The Government of Ap., rep.by its PRincipal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jadi Narsaiah v. The Government of Ap., rep.by its PRincipal Secretary

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

Banjara Welfare Association Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep., by its Principal

Vulli Muralikrishna Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Natti Komel, Vs Ramarao Stones and Metals

B. Srinivasulu Vs The Principal Secretary

D. Veeraswamy Vs The Govt. of a.P, Revenue Department

Smt. N.Venkata Lakshm Vs The District Collector

Pattana Pedala Sankshema Sangam, Vs The District Collector

Dr. Irfan Shaik, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Vs K.V. Sharmila , Venkata Sharmila

Maruthi Ispat and Energy Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Government of India

D.Prabhakar Rao, Vs The District Collector

REliance Infratel Limited, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commision

Balala Hakkula Sangham Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

B. Ram Mohan Reddy Vs The Principal Secretary