Disposed

Ballavarapu Hari Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Telangana HC23 Mar 2015PIL/60/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a PIL challenging the provisional registration of a Fresh Water Aqua Culture Farm on fertile lands. It directed the appropriate authority to examine objections and decide within eight weeks after serving notice on affected persons.

What did the court decide?

Objections to be examined by the appropriate authority and a decision taken within eight weeks of the order after serving notice to affected persons.

Ballavarapu Hari Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.60 OF 2015

¶5

DATED:23.3.2015 Between: Ballavarapu Hari Babu and others … Petitioners And

¶6

The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Dept. of Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries, Secretariat Hyderabad and others … Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶8

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.60 OF 2015

¶9

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)

¶10

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition by the following order.

¶11

It appears that the fifth respondent has issued certificate of provisional registration of Fresh Water Aqua Culture Farm in favour of respondent No.10 with regard to the lands - an extent of Ac.50.54 cents in Survey Nos.338 to 340, 345, 510 to 513 and an extent of Ac.12.75 cents in Survey Nos.504, 505, 506 and 507 of Chevuru Village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District. It is alleged that these lands are fertile lands and converting the same into fish tanks is wholly illegal and arbitrary.

¶12

Since an objection has been raised by the writ petitioners in this matter before making the aforesaid registration final, the objection shall be examined and considered by the appropriate authority and a decision shall be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order, after serving notice to the person/s who might be affected.

¶13

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶14

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There will be no order as to costs.

¶15

________________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

¶16

SANJAY KUMAR, J 23.3.2015 bnr

Ballavarapu Hari Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ballavarapu Hari Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

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

Citizens Legal Aid Society, Vs The Union of India

Inapurapu Suryanarayana, Vs The Union of India, Rep. by its secretary

Madiga Hakkula Porata Sena, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G.C. Penchalaiah S/o Ramaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Swamy Srinivasanda Yogi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary

K. v. Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tanikonda Chiranjeevi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. S. Venu Gopala Chary Vs The Union of India