Disposed

Jamia Masjid Umar Farooq, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC24 Aug 2012WP/26117/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of this writ petition regarding alleged illegal construction of a Rail Under Bridge without adjudicating merits. It directed petitioners to submit alternatives, requested respondent No.4 to submit a feasibility report, and mandated respondent No.3 to dispose of the representation after receipt.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioners to submit alternatives, Respondent No.3 to consider them after a feasibility report from Respondent No.4, and ensuring due procedure for eviction if vacating premises.

Jamia Masjid Umar Farooq, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.26117 OF 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in proceeding with the construction of Rail Under Bridge (RUB) at L.C.No.81 KM 437/15-17, situated at Mahabubabad, Warangal District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 300-A and 350 of the Constitution of India and further direct the respondents not to proceed with the above said construction even before passing of orders on the representations dated 23.12.2011, 14.8.2012 and 16.8.2012 of the petitioners.

¶5

The petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to reassess and plan the project roads for the proposed construction of the RUB duly taking into account all the objections raised by them.

¶6

After arguing the case, Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, leaned counsel for the petitioners, requested for closing the Writ Petition by permitting the petitioners to make a detailed representation to respondent Nos.3 and 4 suggesting alternatives in order to avoid digging of the road at which the petitioners’ shops are located, and direct the said respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioners before proceeding further. Having regard to this submission of the learned counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the case in the following terms: -

¶7

(1) that the petitioners shall make a detailed representation to respondent Nos.3 and 4 within ten days from today;

¶8

(2) that respondent No.4 shall submit a detailed report on the feasibility to respondent No.3 within two weeks of receipt of such

¶9

representation;

¶10

(3) that within two weeks of receipt of such report, respondent No.3 shall consider and dispose of the petitioners’ representation in the light of the report of respondent No.4 and communicate the same to the petitioners.

¶11

(4) that if the respondents are proposed to vacate the premises, they shall follow the due procedure in evicting the petitioners.

¶12

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.33279 of

¶13

2012 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶14

_______________ K.C.BHANU,J

¶15

Date:24.08.2012 Gk

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO.26117 OF 2012

¶18

Date:24.08.2012

¶19

Jamia Masjid Umar Farooq, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamia Masjid Umar Farooq, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Dutta Ram Mohan Rao, Vs Smt. Seshambika

Sri B.Seetharam Reddy, Vs The State of a.P.,rep.by its Public Prosecutor

T. Sukhender Reddy, Vs Mohd. Jaweed Ahmed Siddiqui

Suri Thyagaraju, Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

Pothuraju Bolagani Joseph, Vs The Commissioner of Police

G.Narsimha Vs The Assistant Director