Disposed

K.Chandra Mohan, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC13 Apr 2015PIL/96/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Apex Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh dismissed the writ petition and directed the Revenue Department to investigate the petitioner's complaint regarding encroachers being given premium. The direction included notice, hearing, and recovery of compensation if necessary, with a timeline of eight weeks. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, to investigate the petitioner's complaint regarding encroachers receiving premium and take appropriate action accordingly. Also required recovery

K.Chandra Mohan, 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.96 OF 2015

¶5

DATED:13.04.2015

¶6

Between: K.Chandra Mohan. …Petitioner. And The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department, Hyderabad and others.

¶7

… Respondents.

¶8

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

¶9

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.96 OF 2015

¶10

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

¶11

In this writ petition, the petitioner complains that the encroachers have been given premium by paying the compensation for their ousting of the land. We are of the view that the petitioner shall file a complaint before the authority concerned to that effect.

¶12

Therefore, we direct the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad, the 2^nd respondent, to look into the complaint so to be made by the petitioner after giving notice and hearing, and take a decision in accordance with law. In the process, if he finds that the petitioner’s complaint is correct, appropriate legal measures have to be taken against those officials concerned and steps may be taken for recovery of the compensation from the beneficiaries, who have received it, after giving them notice. If it is found that complaint is incorrect, it would be open for the 2^nd respondent to take action in accordance with law against the petitioner. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶13

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶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 13.04.2015 GJ

K.Chandra Mohan, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Chandra Mohan, 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

Mohammed Haji S/o. Late Mohammed Zahoor, Vs The State of Telangana

M.Tata Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Tanikonda Chiranjeevi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Maddileti, Vs The State of TeIangana

Patthi Raithula Shankeshama Sangam Vs The Government of India

Mr. Neelapu Satyanarayana, S/o. N.Gurumurthy, Vs The State of Ap rep.by its

Gora Rajendra Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal