Allowed

G. Nageswara Rao S/o. Raghavaiah v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC26 Oct 2015PIL/235/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenged inaction by authorities regarding a school's location near a tank bed. The Court found the school built on patta land but noted alleged encroachments. It directed enquiries into encroachments and mandated safety inspections and the construction of separating walls.

What did the court decide?

Ordered enquiry into encroachments within two months; directed construction of a wall separating the school from the tank; linked approval renewal to safety compliance.

G. Nageswara Rao S/o. Raghavaiah Vs State of… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶4

P.I.L.No.235 OF 2015

¶5

PC: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice S.V.Bhatt)

¶6

The petitioner, through the instant public interest litigation, complains against inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in taking suitable steps on the representation of petitioner dated 21.07.2015 against respondent No.5/school situated on the tank bed called “Kanteru Kunta” in Sy.No.555 of Kalluru Village and Mandal, Khammam District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

¶7

On 31.08.2015, this Court ordered notice to respondent No.5. The parties are represented by the counsel and counter affidavits are filed by the contesting parties.

¶8

The present writ petition is filed on the premise

¶9

that the school run by respondent No.5 is constructed on tank bed called “Kanteru Kunta” and not safe for students.

¶10

The further grievance is that the 5^th respondent has not taken adequate measures to prevent happening of unfortunate incidents to children studying in the school.

¶11

The District Collector/2^nd respondent filed counter affidavit and to appreciate that there is no inaction in looking into the grievance of petitioner, the following paragraphs are excerpted:

¶12

“……….Immediately after receipt of the orders of this Hon’ble Court, I have directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry and submit a report vide proceedings in Rc.No.E3/2616/2015 dated 08.09.2015.

¶13

In pursuance of the same, a joint inspection has been conducted by the Revenue Divisional officer along with

¶14

the Tahsildar, Kalluru and verified the records of Sy.No.554 & 555 of Kalluru Village, Khammam District. The land situated in Sy.No.555 is a

¶15

patta land and belongs to

¶16

Sri Md.Ayub, S/o Madar Saheb, R/o Kalluru and the land situated in Sy.No.554 is a tank bed land/shikam land of Kanterukunta. During the inspection, it is also found that the building constructed by the 5^th respondent is situated in Sy.No.555 which is a patta land and no encroachments were found in Sy.No.554 which is a tank bed land, vide proceedings Rc.No.A/11903/2015 dated 26.09.2015.

¶17

…..that the Revenue Divisional officer also clarified that the land situated in Sy.No.555/A total admeasuring Ac.4.12 gts was converted from agricultural use to

¶18

non-agricultural use after collecting necessary conversion fee, vide proceedings in Letter No.D.Dis.A4/6109/2015 dated 22.05.2015. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub-Division, Sathupalli, vide Lr.No.DEE/ISD/ SPL/Camp 1 dated 13.05.2015 clarified that the land situated in Sy.No.554 of Kalluru village is shikam land and the other survey numbers are not forming part of FTL (full tank level) of Kante Ramuni Kunta. Further, Deputy Executive Engineer, Kalluru Village, also certified about the structural soundness of the building of the 5^th respondent vide letter dated 28.05.2015. The Tahsildar also issued certificate, vide proceedings in Lr.Rc.No.C1/453/2015 dated 26.05.2015 stating that the land situated in Sy.No.555/A/A to an extent of Ac.2-06 gts is a patta land and belongs to Md.Ayub and his name has been recorded in the pahanies as pattedar and enjoyer and the Grampanchayat also issued No Objection Certificate”.

¶19

The 2^nd respondent enclosed to the counter affidavit the inspection report of Tahsildar, Kalluru dated 05.09.2015 and the relevant portion of the report reads thus:

¶20

“As per the report of the Mandal Surveyor, Kalluru, I have issued a notice in Form-7 under L.E Act, 1905 to both parties. But one Sri Md.Ayub has submitted reply to the notice and informed that he has no objection to take over the land while fixing the boundaries for Sy.No.554 which is covered Tank Bed land of “Kanterukunta:.

¶21

The Mandal Surveyor, Kalluru conducted survey and fixed boundaries for 555 and 554 after measurement only, it is found that Sri Md.Ayub has encroached the tank bed land to an extent of 0.05 gts, which is a road formed.

¶22

Therefore, they have been issued notice in Form-6 with speaking

¶23

order vide reference 6^th cited directing Mandal Revenue Inspector-I to remove the illegal encroachments in Sy.No.554 and taken over possession.”

¶24

From the above, it is clear that the inaction complained by the petitioner is factually incorrect and at the same time from the averments in the counter affidavit or contents in the report dated 05.09.2015, a few aspects viz., alleged encroachment by

¶25

5^th respondent in an extent of five guntas of land and location of

¶26

5^th respondent school by the side of tank and lack of safety measures, are evident. Considering the fact that the 5^th respondent runs a school at the subject building, we are satisfied that the following directions would meet the ends of justice:

¶27

“The 2^nd respondent directs Tahsildar, Kalluru Mandal to complete the enquiry initiated against alleged five guntas of encroached land under the Land Encroachment Act within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

The 4^th respondent/District Educational Officer, Khammam causes inspection of the school run by 5^th respondent in Sy.No.555 of Kalluru Village and Mandal, Khammam District and examines the safety measures provided by the 5^th respondent vis-à-vis the location of tank in the neighbourhood.

¶29

The 4^th respondent, having regard to the safety of children studying in the school, directs taking all steps by respondent No.5, including construction of a wall separating the school and tank. The grant or renewal of approval shall be made subject to complying these conditions by respondent No.5”.

¶30

PIL is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶31

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed of.

¶32

DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶33

S.V.BHATT, J

¶34

Date: 26.10.2015

¶35

Lrkm

G. Nageswara Rao S/o. Raghavaiah v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Nageswara Rao S/o. Raghavaiah v. State of Telangana

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

Jyothula Venkata Appa Rao , Nehru, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Varupula Subba Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chirla Jaggi Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal

Tera John Gershon Srinivas Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Reddygari Narsimha reddy, S/o. R. Mohan reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Mir Ashfaq Ali Khan S/o Mir Akbar Ali Khan Vs The State of Telangana Rep.by its Principal

Gareeb Guide (Voluntary Organization) Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Yaka Satyanarayana S/o Late Tataiah, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

The Vijayawada Cloth Merchants Association, Vs The Municipal Corporation Vijayawada

Smt. P. Lalitha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Bukke Hima Bindu W/o Bukke Nagendra Naik Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V. Lakshmi Devi, W/o. v. Nagendra Babu, Vs Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada

Prabhu Steel Industries Ltd, Vs a.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.

M/s Maruthi National Lorry Owners Association, Vs The Union of India