The Honble Single Judge dismissed the writ filing because the dispute over alleged illegal encroachment and construction over a public passage is maintainable only before the competent Civil Court, not under Article 226.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.37872 of 2013
Date: 24.12.2013
Between: Juluru Veera Raghava Rao
..... PETITIONER
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru and others
.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4:
The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 3 in encouraging and permitting respondent No.4 from encroaching upon a purported public passage allegedly belonging to the Government as illegal and arbitrary.
From the nature of the grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, it is evident that he is aggrieved by the action of respondent No.4 in seeking to raise construction over a purported public passage. I do not, therefore, find any reason for the petitioner not to approach the competent Civil Court to restrain respondent No.4 from committing such act.
In this view of the matter, while declining to entertain this writ petition, the petitioner is given liberty to avail common law remedies.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.47123 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
Date: 24.12.2013 va
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging alleged illegal encroachment on public passage should be entertained or if the civil court is the competent authority.
Whether the petitioner's remedy against the State's action to permit construction lies in a writ petition or civil suit.
Juluru Veera Raghava Rao
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
