Allowed

Mrs. R. Usha Rani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC30 Dec 2013WP/38572/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerns the obstruction of a plan-marked cart track in Chittoor District due to a compound wall raised by Yuvarajulu Naidu. The High Court directed the Revenue Department to investigate the grievance, identify the obstructors, and take appropriate action within two months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to investigate the grievance regarding obstruction of a cart track, identify persons raising the wall, and act within two months.

Mrs. R. Usha Rani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.38572 of 2013

¶3

Date:30.12.2013

¶4

Between: R.Usha Rani, W/o Hari Krishnama Naidu and six others.

¶5

..... Petitioners

¶6

And:

¶7

The Govt of AP, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and three others.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt Sundari R.Pisupati Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue

¶10

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶11

The petitioners, who are residents of Puthalapattu Village and Mandal, Chittoor District, filed this Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by the inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in preventing a person by name Yuvarajulu Naidu and others from obstructing the plan-marked cart track in Survey No.417 of Oddepalle Village, Puthalpattu Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶12

The petitioners averred that Survey No.417 comprises Acs.7.09 cents classified as ‘Government land’; that the said land was sub-divided into Survey Nos.417/1 and 417/2 consisting of Acs.4.25 cents and Acs.2.84 cents respectively; and that the land in Survey No.417/2 was allotted to landless poor persons and an extent of Acs.2.00 in Survey No.417/1 covered with rocks

¶13

and boulders called ‘Iralolla Banda’ is being used by the villagers of about 10 villages for drying and storing their agricultural produce. The petitioners further averred that an extent of Ac.1.64 cents in Survey No.417/1 was assigned in favour of the villagers leaving Ac.0.61 cents without being assigned. They have further averred that they own lands in Survey Nos.407, 408 and 409 situated adjacent to the land in Survey No.417; that an ancient plan-marked cart track starting from Ramapuram Road in Survey Nos.509 and 510 of Oddepalle Village has been in existence from time immemorial; and that the said cart track is being used by the petitioners and other villagers of Oddepalle for transporting the agricultural produce from the lands to their houses.

¶14

The grievance of the petitioners is that one Yuvarajulu Naidu and others, who are residents of Puthalapattu Village and Mandal, have unlawfully raised a compound wall over the land in Survey No.417/1, thereby obstructing the passage. The petitioners have made repeated representations to all the District revenue functionaries including respondent No.2. As no action has been taken on the said representations, the petitioners filed this Writ Petition.

¶15

In support of their plea that there is a plan-marked cart track in existence, the petitioners have filed a copy of the Village map which, prima facie, shows existence of such cart track. However, as the representations made to respondent No.2 are not considered so far, this Court refrains from expressing any opinion on this aspect. If a cart track exists in the Village map, it is the bounden duty of the revenue functionaries to protect such cart track for the benefit of its users. I do not find any justifiable reason for respondent No.2, who is the revenue head of the District, not to take a serious note of the grievance of the petitioners.

¶16

In this view of the matter, respondent No.2 is directed to address the grievance of the petitioners and do the needful if there exists a plan-marked cart track and any person has been obstructing the villagers from using such cart track. If a compound wall, as alleged by the petitioners, has already been raised, respondent No.2 shall identify the persons who raised such wall and take appropriate action after issuing notices to those persons. Respondent No.2 shall complete this process within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶18

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.47944 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶20

30^th December, 2013 DR

Mrs. R. Usha Rani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. R. Usha Rani v. The 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

Smt. Zaheera Begum W/o late Syed Shareef, D/o. Late Syed Vs The Revenue Minister

G.Gopal, S/o.G.Pentaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.T.K.Mallika , Saraswathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

Rudraraju Rudraraju Subba Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Gundu Shashirekha, W/o.Late Rajasekharam Vs The District collector, Warangal, Warangal District

A.V. Santosh kumar Vs Mr.Saijid Hussain