Allowed

N.Narayana Raju v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rept by its Principal

Telangana HC3 Sept 2015WP/18632/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition filed to set aside an order of no objection for granting Eksal pattas to Scheduled Caste families. Relying on a prior judgment and a respondent's admission that the order was contrary to it, the Court set aside the impugned letter and disposed of a connected matter as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The impugned letter conveying no objection is set aside; the writ petition is allowed; W.P.M.P. No.23882 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous.

N.Narayana Raju Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.18632 OF 2012

¶3

DATED:3-9-2015

¶4

Between:

¶5

N. Narayana Raju and others … Petitioners And

¶6

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Irrigation & CAD (PW L.A.I) Department Secretariat Hyderabad and others … Respondents … Respondents

¶7

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Mr. Mavidi Rama Rao

¶8

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 to 3 : A.G.P. for Irrigation and Command Area Development (AP) COUNSEL FOR RRESPONDENT NOs.4 and 5: A.G.P. for Revenue (AP)

¶9

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.6 : A.G.P. for Home (AP)

¶10

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside Letter No.E.E./G.H./76/Rev. dt.31.12.2011, of respondent No.2 whereby he has conveyed no objection for grant of Eksal pattas to poor scheduled caste families in respect of Ac.30.00 of land which was given on lease to the petitioners by respondent No.1.

¶13

It is unnecessary to refer to detailed facts of the case for the reason that the present incumbent of respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit wherein he has admitted that his predecessor in office has issued the impugned letter conveying his no objection to respondent No.5 overlooking the judgment dt.15.9.2011 of this Court in W.P. No.25879 of 2011. He has further stated that in view of the said judgment, his predecessor was not correct in granting no objection and that as on today the lease granted to the petitioners is not cancelled.

¶14

In the light of the above unequivocal and fair admission of respondent No.2 that the impugned letter addressed by his predecessor is contrary to the judgment of this Court in W.P. No.25879 of 2011, the same is set aside and the writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶15

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.23882 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶16

_______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 3-9-2015 bnr

N.Narayana Raju v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rept by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Narayana Raju v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rept by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.K.Chandrasekhara Rao, S/o K.v.Hanumantha Rao, Vs Vice-Chancellor, Potti Sriramulu Telugu University

M.A. Jaleel Saw Mill, Vs The Divisional Forest Officer

People for Animals (Voluntary Organization working for Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G. Kiran Kumar Vs The State of A.P.

Ponnapalli Venkata Jeevan Kumar Vs The Deputy Registrar

Karnati Vishnu Vardhan Reddy Vs The Managing Director, A.P.I.I.C. Parushram Bhavan