Disposed

Sunkara Venkanna, v. The Superintending Engineer

Telangana HC3 Oct 2012WP/30900/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that demanding removal of encroachments was not illegal, but resorting to Police force for eviction without following the procedure under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was arbitrary. The respondent was directed to comply with the legal procedure before eviction.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 is directed not to evict the petitioners without complying with the legal procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

Sunkara Venkanna, Vs The Superintending… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.30900 of 2012

¶3

Dated 03.10.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Sunkara Venkanna and others

¶6

…Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

The Superintending Engineer and others

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy

¶11

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5: --

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in seeking to remove the cattle sheds and hayricks of the petitioners constructed over the Government land adjacent to the Godavari Right Canal in Jonnada Village, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District, by issuing the impugned notice dated 22.09.2012 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

It is the admitted case of the petitioners that they are in occupation of the land belonging to the Irrigation Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh and raised thatched huts for tethering cattle and placed hayricks over the said land. On the complaint given by the neighbours, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned notice, wherein the petitioners were called upon to remove the encroachments put up by them by 29.09.2012, failing which the same will be removed through Police.

¶16

I do not find any illegality in respondent No.3 demanding the petitioners to remove the encroachments. In the event the petitioners do not oblige, respondent No.3 sought to remove the encroachments through Police. Respondent No.3 cannot resort to such highhanded act of evicting the petitioners through Police force. He has to necessarily invoke the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and evict the petitioners by following the procedure prescribed therein.

¶17

Respondent No.3 is, therefore, directed not to evict the petitioners without complying with the legal procedure indicated above.

¶18

Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶19

As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.39406 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03^rd October, 2012 GHN

Sunkara Venkanna, v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunkara Venkanna, v. The Superintending Engineer

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

Mohd. Mazheruddin Vs Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

M. Chandra Mohan Vs The District Cooperative Officer (Fac)

Sultan-ul-Uloom Educational Society Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Madina Podupu Lakshmi Group, Vs The Mandal Level Mid Day Meals Committee

M/s. Sarita Steel and Industries Ltd. Vs Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

M/s Babu Constructions Company, Vs Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd.