The High Court disposed of a writ petition by relying on an interim order from 2006, granting liberty to respondents to follow due procedure for utilizing the chakalikunta while restraining premature use of the tank bed.
Disposed by giving liberty to respondents to follow due procedure for changing the user of chakalikunta.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT
WRIT PETITION No.12599 OF 2005
DATED: 09.09.2015
Between: Thummala Surender Reddy … Petitioner and
The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others
… Respondents
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT
WRIT PETITION No.12599 of 2005
ORDER: (per the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)
None appears for the petitioner. Learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and Panchayat Raj appears for the respondents.
This Writ Petition was filed in 2006 and on 27.01.2006, while admitting the Writ Petition, the following interim order was passed:
“Arguments on the stay application have been heard.
Prima facie, we are satisfied that the area of tank bed should not be allowed to be used for any other purpose because that would result in permanent destruction of the natural source of water and will be gravely injurious to the community at large. If the public authorities of the area have by their actions and omissions allowed the blocking of the natural flow of the water, this is likely to result in catastrophe in future. It is therefore reasonable to restrain the respondents from utilizing the tank bed for any other purpose. Ordered accordingly.”
Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 2, 5 and 6 invited our attention to paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit and submitted that respondents
may be given liberty to follow the due procedure to utilize the chakalikunta for any other purpose if they so desire and advised.
With this liberty, we dispose of the Writ Petition in terms of the interim order, dated 27.01.2006. We once again make it clear that it is open to the respondents to follow the due procedure for changing the user/classification of chakalikunta, which, according to them, is defunct for last several years.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ
9th SEPTEMBER, 2015.
_____________ S.V. BHATT, J
kvni
Thummala Surender Reddy
The Government of Andhra Pradesh
Dilip B. Bhosale
S.V. Bhatt
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
