Dismissed

Smt.Durgaben Patel, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC21 Nov 2013WP/33289/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed a writ petition filed by a landowner seeking to declare the arbitrary erection of a government board on her property illegal. The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust the alternative remedy of issuing a prior representation to the Respondents and thus lacked the required procedural antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to approach Respondents with a written representation to remove the board before filing any fresh petition.

Smt.Durgaben Patel, Vs The Government of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33289 of 2013 Date:21.11.2013

¶2

Between: Smt Durgaben Patel, W/o Srivlal Patel

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

And

¶5

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd by its District Collector, Medak District and two others.

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Narayan Laxman Rao

¶8

Counsel for the Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader

¶9

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶10

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3, in putting up a board over the land admeasuring Acs.3.35 guntas in Survey Nos.450 and 465 of Kandi Village, Sangareddy Revenue Mandal, Medak District, without passing any order, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶11

The petitioner pleded that while she is the lawful owner of the above-mentioned property having purchased the same under registered sale deed, dated 26.05.2005, in September, 2013, respondent Nos.2 and 3 along with their staff came to the said land and erected a board, wherein it was written that the total extent of land admeasuring Acs.148.74 guntas in Survey Nos.449 to

¶12

455, 460/2 to 461, 464 and 465 and 471 to 474 of Kandi Village belongs to the Government. The petitioner claimed that her enquiries revealed that the Government is claiming the said land as belonging to it.

¶13

On the petitioner’s own showing, the board was allegedly erected in September, 2013. Before filing this Writ Petition, the petitioner had at least two months time to assert her right over the property by issuing appropriate notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3. Had such a notice been issued to them, respondent Nos.2 and 3 would have come out with their stand by way of a reply, based on which, this Court would have appreciated the case of the petitioner from a better perspective.

¶14

As held by the Apex Court in Kamini Kumar Das Choudhury Vs. State of West Bengal^[1] and Amrit Lal vs. Collector, Central Excise (Revenue)^[2] , before approaching the Constitutional Courts for a writ of Mandamus, the aggrieved party has to first approach the authority concerned demanding justice. As the petitioner has failed to follow this procedure, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition at this stage. However, the petitioner is permitted to approach respondent Nos.2 and 3 with a representation in writing to remove the board. If such representation is received, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall consider and respond to the same by giving a reply in writing disclosing the reasons for erection of the board. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by such communication, she shall then be entitled to avail an appropriate remedy.

¶15

Subject to the above observations and direction, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶16

As a sequel to the dismissal of the Writ Petition,

¶17

W.P.M.P.No.41414 of 2013 is dismissed as infructuous.

¶18

__________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA

¶19

REDDY

¶20

21^st November 2013 DR

¶21

[1] ) AIR 1972 SC 2060 [2] ) AIR 1975 SC 538

Smt.Durgaben Patel, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Durgaben Patel, v. The 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deva Reddy Rajashekar Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ambati Rama Lakshmi, W/o Venkat Reddy Vs The Tahsildar

Butta Hospitalities Private Limited Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Tekumatla Pullamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Namindla Jayapal, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Rep by its Secretary Vs The Collector and District Magistrate