Disposed

Shaik Chinna Mastan, S/o Kamal Saheb, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its

Telangana HC13 Jul 2015WP/21252/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner questioned the inaction of respondents regarding proposed illegal development on his land. The court, having received an agreed consent for disposal, directed the second and fifth respondents to decide the petitioner's representations expeditiously without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to second and fifth respondents to dispose of petitioner's representations dated 4.7.2015 and 16.6.2015 within four weeks.

Shaik Chinna Mastan, S/o Kamal Saheb, Vs The State of… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 21252 of 2015

¶3

Date : 13.07-2015

¶4

Between : Shaik Chinna Mastan S/o Kamal Saheb R/o Kondamuru village, J Panguluru mandal Prakasam district

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The State of A P Rep by its Principal Secretary, P R & Rural Devp Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶8

Respondents

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21252 of 2015

¶11

ORAL ORDER:

¶12

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Assistant Government

¶13

Pleader for Revenue and learned standing counsel for second respondent Gram Panchayat and with their consent, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

¶14

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents 1 to 5 in not initiating any action against respondents 6 to 10 pursuant to representations of the petitioner dated 16.6.2015 and 4.7.2015 and to prevent the illegal development activities conducted by them in part of land in survey No. 248/2, Kondamuru village belonging to petitioner.

¶15

3. Petitioner claims that he is landless poor and on 1.10.1984 D-Namuna patta vide DK 155 was granted to him to an extent of land admeasuring Ac.1.05 cents and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and eking out his livelihood by cultivating the same and alleges that without any authority respondents 6 to 10 encroached upon part of his land and illegally started construction. Petitioner alleges that though he has brought the said encroachment and illegal construction to the notice of official respondents no action is taken. Petitioner also submitted representation dated 16.6.2015 to 5^th respondent and representation dated 4.7.2015 to second respondent and no action is taken as on date. Hence the present writ petition.

¶16

4. When the matter is taken up, learned counsel on either side agreed for disposal of the writ petition with a direction to second and fifth respondents to expeditiously dispose of the pending representations of petitioner.

¶17

5. Having regard to the same, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, writ petition is disposed of directing second and fifth respondents to dispose of representations of petitioner dated 4.7.2015 and 16.6.2015 respectively and pass appropriate orders as warranted under law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner. It is needless to mention that prior notice and opportunity of hearing be afforded to respondents 6 to 10. No costs. Having regard to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed.

¶18

______________ P NAVEEN RAO,J

¶19

DATE:13.7.2015

¶20

TVK

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶22

WRIT PETITION No. 21252 of 2015

¶23

Date : 13.07-2015

Shaik Chinna Mastan, S/o Kamal Saheb, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Chinna Mastan, S/o Kamal Saheb, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its

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

Chiranjeevi B S/o. Kistaiah, Vs The State of Telangana

Panasa Thirupathi, Vs The State of Telangana

K.L.S.R. Infratech Limited, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ameen Pasha Vs The State Of Telengana Rep By Principal Secretary

Syed Muzaffar, Vs State of Telangana

Medukonda Venu Gopal, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh