Dismissed

Yenni Venkatesh, S/o.late Appala Suryanarayana, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC7 Jul 2015WP/20407/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by landowners claiming sand carriers used their land for transport without prior grievance redressal. The court held the petition vague and unmaintainable for failure to approach district authorities first.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Petitioners directed to approach 2nd and 4th respondents to lodge a complaint regarding sand transport on their lands.

Yenni Venkatesh, S/o.late Appala… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.20407 of 2015

¶3

Dated : 07.07.2015

¶4

Between: Yenni Venkatesh S/o.Late Appala Suryanarayana, Aged about 30 yrs, R/o.Vanithamandalam Village, Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District & 2 others .. Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Mines & Geology, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 3 others .. Respondents

¶5

This Court made the following :

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.20407 of 2015

¶8

ORDER :

¶9

The petitioners claims to be the joint owners and possessors of lands to an extent of Ac.1-03 cents in Survey No.488/3, Ac.3.00 in Survey No.488/1 and Ac.8.95 cents in Survey No.488/1 of Vanithamandalam Village, Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District. The respondents granted lease to extract sand in 21 sand reaches in Srikakulam District and one of such sand reach is Polaki Sand Reach of Mabagam Village to which environmental clearance was also granted on 23.02.2015 and mining operations are allowed on this sand reach to the Dwakra group by the 4^th respondent. The petitioners allege that while extracting the sand, the Dwakra group is transporting the sand from the lands of the petitioners in the above mentioned survey numbers, adversely affecting the properties of the petitioners.

¶10

2. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition are vague. It does not show how the petitioners lands are affected and it does not say whether there was any road existing which is being used or people are accessing to road by using the lands of the petitioners. The petitioners have also not complained to any of the authorities in the district, but straight away filed this writ petition. No writ petition can be entertained on vague assertions and even without complaining to the competent authority ventilating their grievance. This writ petition in the present form is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioners to lodge a complaint to the 2^nd & 4^th respondents ventilating their grievance of persons using their lands for transporting of sand. It is needless to observe that as and when such complaint is filed, the 2^nd & 4^th respondent shall consider the same objectively and communicate the decision to the petitioners in due course. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.

¶13

P.NAVEEN RAO,J

¶14

07^th July, 2015. Rds

Yenni Venkatesh, S/o.late Appala Suryanarayana, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yenni Venkatesh, S/o.late Appala Suryanarayana, v. 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

Perla SambaMurthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mawaram Vishnuvardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Kothapalli Saibaba, Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Ali Akber, Vs State of Telangana

Jhansi Laxmi Bai Dwakra Mahila Sangam Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by Principal Secretary

P. Vikaram Kumar S/o late P. Prabhakar Rao, Vs The Managing Director