Disposed

Garapalli Rama Laxmi v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC11 Dec 2013WP/36142/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dispositions a writ petition regarding indiscriminate demolition of properties alleged to be under lawful possession. Directs petitioners to submit claim documents and mandates respondents to hear petitioners before removal, subject to penal consequences for non-submission.

What did the court decide?

Directs petitioners to submit representations and documents proving lawful possession within five days; mandates respondent to examine claims and hear petitioners before proceeding with removal.

Garapalli Rama Laxmi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.36142 of 2013

¶3

Dated: 11.12.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Garapalli Rama Laxmi and others .. Petitioners and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents

¶6

Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. M.M.M. Srinivas for Mr. Kowturu Pavan Kumar

¶7

Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP for Revenue

¶8

Counsel for respondent No.5: AGP for Irrigation & CAD

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners is that purporting to carry out the interim orders granted by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.21383 of 2008, the respondents have been going on indiscriminate demolitions without even examining the documents in possession of the petitioners showing their lawful occupation of the properties.

¶11

A perusal of the record shows that in a Public Interest Litigation, a Division Bench of this Court has passed a series of interim orders, the substance of which is to the effect that the respondents shall take action for eviction of the unauthorised occupants of the land pertaining to Nagarjuna Sagar Project Canal.

¶12

In W.V.M.P.No.2645 of 2009 in W.P.No.21383 of 2008, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order on 18.11.2013:-

¶13

“This vacate petition has been filed in the year 2009. Four years have gone by and no sincere effort has been made to place this application. Subsequently, the Court has passed several orders and those orders have been carried out. The nature of the order which is sought to be vacated is as follows:

¶14

“The learned Government Pleader appearing for Revenue as well as Irrigation, have frankly admitted that the allegation made in the Writ Petition with regard to encroachments made by people on the land in question, is correct.

¶15

The concerned authorities shall do the needful for removal of the encroachments as soon as possible in accordance with law.”

¶16

Therefore, the encroachments have to be removed in accordance with law and in that process, the person concerned will have to be heard in the matter. We are of the view that it is not such an order, which will affect immediately any person. Therefore, the prayer for vacating the order is rejected.

¶17

The application is accordingly dismissed.”

¶18

In view of the observation made by the Division Bench in the last paragraph of the above reproduced order, before removing the encroachments the persons concerned will have to be heard in the matter.

¶19

Sri M.M.M. Srinivas, learned counsel representing Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are prepared to place before respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 the documents showing their lawful possession of the properties.

¶20

In the light of the above discussed facts of the case and the order passed by the Division Bench, this writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: -

¶21

(1) Within five days from today, the petitioners shall submit their representations before respondent No.2 along with the documents in support of their claim that they are in lawful possession of the properties;

¶22

(2) thereupon, respondent No.2 shall examine the claim of each petitioner and take appropriate decision depending upon the nature of occupation of the petitioners;

¶23

(3) respondent No.2 shall make necessary endorsements with

¶24

reasons in support of his decision in each case and communicate them to the petitioners before proceeding further with the removal of the construction made by the petitioners; and

¶25

(4) if the petitioners fail to submit their documents within the time stipulated in (1) supra, the respondents shall be free to take further action without any notice to the petitioners.

¶26

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.44929 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶27

_____________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶28

11^th December, 2013 IBL

Garapalli Rama Laxmi v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Garapalli Rama Laxmi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivalenka Sasidhara Prasad Vs The District Collector

P. Swapna Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary

M/s. Kedia Distilleries, Vs Mr.Sameer Sharma, I.A.S

Shaik Sharfuddin Saheb Vs Governemnt of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Salma Sultana, W/o. Abdul Hafeez Vs The District Collector

C. Sundararamaiah, Vs The Government of A.P.