Disposed

Bolukonda Vivek Sagar, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC11 Nov 2013WP/36646/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the demolition of their compound wall before an appeal under the AP Land Encroachment Act concluded. The Court found the demolition was unauthorized during pendency, noted subsequent reconstruction and plastering by respondents, and dismissed the petition as grievance stands redressed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of; W.P.M.P. disposed of as infructuous; further action depends on pending revision.

Bolukonda Vivek Sagar, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.36646 of 2012

¶3

Date:11.11.2013

¶4

Between: Bolukonda Vivek Sagar, S/o Late Ranganayakulu and two others.

¶5

..... Petitioners

¶6

And:

¶7

The District Collector, Warangal District and four others.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P.Meher Srinivasa Rao

¶10

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Badana Bhaskara Rao Addl. Advocate General

¶11

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶12

This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that even without waiting for the statutory period of 30 days available for the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, respondent No.3 has demolished the compound wall raised by the petitioners over the land in Survey Nos.468/3 and 468/2 of Dharmaram Village, Geesukonda Mandal, Warangal District.

¶13

During the hearing of this Writ Petition, it has come out that the compound wall was, in fact, demolished and possession was allegedly taken on 22.11.2012, while the appeal filed by the petitioners before the appellate authority was pending. This Court has taken a serious view of the conduct of the respondents and suo motu

¶14

impleaded the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, as respondent No.4 and directed him to file a report on the action which he proposes to take against respondent No.3 for demolishing the compound wall. Subsequently, the proceedings, dated 29.04.2013, of the Special Chief Secretary & CCLA, was placed before this Court exonerating respondent No.3. Being dissatisfied with the same, this Court has directed the personal presence of the previous as well as the present Tahsildars. On 12.08.2013, this Court was informed by the Special Government Pleader that the relevant note file reveals that respondent No.3 has demolished the compound wall on the directions of the Joint Collector, Warangal District, following his site visit on 14.11.2012. Subsequently, respondent No.3 has filed an affidavit deposing to the said fact. Based on the same, the petitioners filed WPMP.No.30204 of 2013 for impleadment of the Joint Collector, Warangal District as respondent No.5 in the Writ Petition. The said application was, accordingly, allowed by this Court by order, dated 26.08.2013. On 10.09.2013, this Court has directed the personal presence of respondent No.5. Accordingly on 16.09.2013, respondent No.5 was personally present.

¶15

Sri Badana Bhaskara Rao, the learned Additional Advocate General, while stating that the compound wall ought not to have been demolished by respondent No.3 in view of the pendency of the appeal, requested for an adjournment for taking remedial steps. The case was, accordingly, adjourned more than once for the said purpose.

¶16

Today, the learned Additional Advocate General placed before the Court letter No.E1/5695/2012, dated 09.11.2013, of respondent No.1 addressed to the

¶17

Additional Advocate General, wherein he has stated that the compound wall over Survey No.468 of Dharmaram Village was reconstructed. He has enclosed two photographs to the letter addressed by him.

¶18

From a perusal of the photographs, it is seen that the compound wall is raised and the same is being plastered. It has also come out at the hearing that the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by respondent No.2 and that a Revision is pending before respondent No.1. Sri P.Meher Srinivasa Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has admitted to this fact.

¶19

In the light of the above facts and the remedial steps taken by the respondents to undo the unduly hasty action on the part of the then Joint Collector, Warangal District, the petitioners’ grievance stands redressed.

¶20

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of by directing that further action by the respondents, if any, shall depend upon the outcome of the pending Revision Petition and further proceedings that may arise out of the order that may be passed in the Revision Petition.

¶21

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.46521 of 2012 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶22

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶23

11^th November, 2013 DR

Bolukonda Vivek Sagar, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bolukonda Vivek Sagar, v. The District Collector

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

G.Deepak Reddy, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. K. Gopichand, S/o. late K. Seethaiah, Vs The District Collector, Chittoor District.

Dumpala Venkata Subbamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Manohar, S/o. K.Rama Swamy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Maachi Raju Narsamma, Vs Govt. of A.P

M/s.Yashoda Infrastructure Projects (P) Ltd., office flat No Vs The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh