Disposed

P. Lakshmamma v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principle

Telangana HC17 Jul 2014WP/18642/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging non-action by Revenue officials regarding unauthorized construction on Government land was disposed of, directing the authorities to take an appropriate decision after issuing notices to the respondent and petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to take appropriate decision after giving notice to the respondent No. 5 as well as petitioner.

P. Lakshmamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 18642 of 2014

BETWEEN

P.Lakshmamma

... PETITIONER

AND

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. T.C. KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. In view of the order proposed to be passed, it is not necessary to serve respondent No.5.

¶16

2. Petitioner complains that respondent No.5 is making unauthorized constructions in the land to an extent of Ac.0-04 cents in Survey No.243/7 of Kothapplimitta, S.R.Puram Mandal, against which petitioner appears to have

¶17

made a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) as well as to the Tahsildar. It is stated that the RDO, Chittoor vide proceedings in ROC.G/1424/2011 dated 20.12.2013 directed the Tahsildar, S.R.Puram to stop the construction work aforesaid, if the same is found in Government land and report compliance. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is notwithstanding the said direction of the RDO, the Tahsildar is not taking any steps and allowing respondent No.5 to continue the construction.

¶18

3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that on the basis of the orders of the RDO, the Tahsildar has issued notice to respondent No.5 on 24.12.2013 requiring him to stop the construction, whereupon respondent No.5 has filed an application to permit him to continue the construction work and the said application is forwarded to RDO and the orders on that are awaited. It is also stated that, as the construction work taken up is found to be objectionable on the Government land, appropriate steps are being taken for recovering the Government land, in accordance with law.

¶19

In view of the said statement on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4, writ petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to take appropriate decision in the matter after giving notice to respondent No.5 as well as petitioner. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶21

July 17, 2014

¶22

Note: Furnish copy within two days.

¶23

{B/o} LMV

P. Lakshmamma v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Lakshmamma v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principle

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

Vinjam Penchalaiah, Vs State of A.P.

S. Suresh Babu, S/o Chandramurthy Vs The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary

Kapde Penthu, S/o. Penthu Vs The Government of Telangana

Syed Zakir Hussain, S/o Late Syed Yousuf Hussain, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tatavarthi Pullaiah Vs Mr. Neelisetti NArasimha Rao

J.Bala Naveena, aged about 30 years, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh