Dismissed

Nimmala Sivaramaiah, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC10 Sept 2015WP/17139/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Acting Chief Justice dismissed this writ petition filed for removing structures from a disputed burial ground. Since the petitioner lacked documentary proof and the government submission that the land is part of a developed town went undisputed, the Court found no merit in the petition.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed writ petition seeking direction to remove structures from disputed land.

Nimmala Sivaramaiah, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | 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

WRIT PETITION No. 17139 of 2005

¶5

Dt:10.09.2015

¶6

Between: N.Sivaramaiah.

¶7

… Petitioner And The District Collector and others.

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶10

WRIT PETITION No. 17139 of 2005

¶11

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.4.

¶13

None appears for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

¶14

The petitioner, in the instant writ petition, seeks the following

¶15

relief:

¶16

“For the reasons sated in he accompanying affidavit, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 4 in not taking action against respondents 5 and 6 to remove the structures being raised in Survey No.514/2 of Kuchipudi Village, Marripudi Mandal of Prakasam District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional while issuing a consequential direction to the official respondents to remove all the structures raised in the burial ground located in Survey No.514/2 of Kuchipudi Village, Marripudi Mandal of Prakasam District in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶17

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, at the outset, on instructions, submits that an enquiry was conducted in response to the representation made by the petitioner and his claim that the land in

¶18

dispute was a burial ground had been rejected long back.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that he is not aware of any such representation and the order passed thereon. In response to our question, in all fairness, he submits that the petitioner does not have any documentary proof to show that the land in dispute was ever used as burial ground.

¶20

Learned Government Pleader submits that the land in dispute is now a part of developed town and surrounded by residential houses and there exist a road over the said land. This submission has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

In the circumstances, we have no option, but to dismiss the writ petition. Order accordingly.

¶22

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶24

________________________ S.V. BHATT, J Dt: 10.09.2015 kdl

Nimmala Sivaramaiah, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nimmala Sivaramaiah, v. The District Collector

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

Thummala Surender Reddy Vs The Govt. of A.P

Sandhi Polysters Limited, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

B.Nagappa, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt Shahnaz Begum, Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Onteru Parthasarathi Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. B. Renuka Vs The Government of A.P.