Dismissed

Chakali Narahari, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC2 Jan 2012WP/34798/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-provision of employment to petitioners whose lands were acquired for a reservoir. The court held the petition lacked merit, noting the land was acquired in 1984 when the petitioners were not yet born and were not eligible under the relevant Government Order rules. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Chakali Narahari, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 34798 of 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not providing employment to the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to consider their case and provide employment as per G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation dated 15.04.1986.

¶4

The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this writ petition are:

¶5

The 1^st petitioner filed affidavit on his behalf and also on behalf of other petitioners. It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioners’ lands were acquired by the Government, for the purpose of construction of reservoir, treatment works and staff quarters, and provided monetary compensation. It is alleged that as per G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation dated 15.04.1986, the Government compensated some persons, whose lands were also acquired for the same purpose, by providing employment under land-losers/displaced persons category. The petitioners claim that though their lands were also acquired for the same purpose, but not provided with any employment, and hence the respondents may be directed to consider their case for providing employment.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that

¶7

though the respondents acquired land of the petitioners, they are not providing employment to the petitioners, as stipulated under G.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation, dated 15.04.1986.

¶8

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that the lands in question were acquired in the year 1984 and by that time the petitioners were not even born, and hence, the question of considering the petitioners case for providing employment does not arise.

¶9

Under G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986, one of the family members of the displaced person is eligible for employment. The land in question was acquired in the year 1984 and by that time the petitioners were not born. Therefore, the question of considering the case of the petitioners for providing employment, after two decades of acquiring the land, does not arise.

¶10

This writ petition is devoid of merits, and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

____________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶12

02^nd January, 2012

¶13

KSM

Chakali Narahari, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chakali Narahari, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

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

A.S.Prabhu, Vs The Special Officer and Competent Authority

Bhashyam Srinivas Vs The Commissioner

M/s. Siddu Technologies Vs Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

Rajana Suryanarayana Vs The Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (Vuda)

M/s.Thattekunta Wadder Vs The Commissioner Jangaon Municipality

Shaili Gardenia Residents Welfare Association, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation