Disposed

Panduga Aruna, v. Government of a.P., rep by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC10 Apr 2012WP/23392/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging the legality of increasing tank height and dispossessing petitioners were disposed of. The court directed respondents not to evict petitioners without notice and an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents not to evict petitioners from subject plots except after putting them on notice and giving opportunity of being heard.

Panduga Aruna, Vs Government of a.P., rep by its… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.14667 and 23392 of 2011

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

The relief sought for in these Writ Petitions is to declare the action of the respondents, in violating the procedure prescribed in increasing the height of the weir (Alugu) of Chinna Waddepalli Cheruvu (for short ‘the tank’) to the maximum level, and in trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject plots, as being illegal and arbitrary.

¶4

It is the petitioners’ case that the plots which they own were 150 meters beyond the full tank level of the tank; the respondents had deliberately chosen to increase the height of the tank; and since the height was increased, without putting the petitioners’ on notice and giving them an opportunity of being heard, the action of the respondent is illegal.

¶5

On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the full tank level of the tank had not been increased; all that the respondent-Corporation did was to constitute a committee to ensure that all the tanks, within the limits of the Warangal Municipal Corporation, are free from encroachment to enable water to be stored in the said tanks; a team of officials was constituted to physically verify all the tanks; and the Corporation has merely laid stones identifying the full tank level of the tanks which were prescribed earlier.

¶6

Sri C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, would fairly state that no action has, as yet, been taken to remove the encroachments; the Corporation would act strictly in accordance with law; and action, if any, taken for removal of the encroachments within the full tank level of the

¶7

tank would only be after putting the encroachers on notice, and giving them an opportunity of being heard.

¶8

In the light of the submissions made by the Learned Standing Counsel, I see no reason to keep the Writ Petitions pending on the file of this Court.

¶9

The Writ Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of directing the respondents not to evict the petitioners from the subject plots except in accordance with law, and after putting them on notice and giving them an opportunity of being heard. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

¶10

RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J

¶11

Dt.10.04.2012 usd

Panduga Aruna, v. Government of a.P., rep by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panduga Aruna, v. Government of a.P., 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Suven Nishtaa Pharma Private Limited Vs -

B.Devender Reddy Vs M/s Mamatha Chit Funds (P) Ltd.

Shri Akhil Pandey Vs M/S Satyam Computer Services Ltd.

Allenkki Ashok Kumar Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mr.Umesh Kumar I.P.S., Vs The State of Andhra pradesh

Mr. Umesh Kumar, (Ips)., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh