Disposed

Nakkala Chinna Kondalu v. The District Collector

Telangana HC30 Dec 2015WP/25451/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses the initial filing of counsel for petitioners and, without adjudication on merits, disposes of a writ petition concerning the third respondent's inaction on a representation regarding land encroachment and threats of false cases on 02.08.2010.

What did the court decide?

Third respondent directed to pass appropriate orders on the pending representation dated 02.08.2010 expeditiously.

Nakkala Chinna Kondalu Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 25451 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Sri M.Adam, who filed vakalath on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have taken away the vakalath long back and he is not appearing in this matter. Though the petitioners have taken up vakalath long back but till today no fresh vakalath has been filed by engaging another counsel. Heard the Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record.

¶5

The present writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in not considering the representation dated 02.08.2010 made by the petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

The petitioners herein are eking out their livelihood by doing cultivation in various survey numbers at Valluvaripalem Village, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District. The said lands are located near the road which leads to Machavaripalem on either side of Bheemunigunta vagu. While things stood thus, Golapala Srinu and Narra Edukondalu are alleged to have illegally cut the eucalyptus trees existing in the lands of the petitioners. When the petitioners objected for the same, they threatened the petitioners to implicate them in false cases of atrocities. Aggrieved by the action of the said persons, the petitioners made a detailed representation, dated 02.08.2010, to the third respondent to take an appropriate action against the said persons and to protect the poramboke land adjacent to the petitioners’

¶7

land. His inaction led to filing of the present writ petition.

¶8

The grievance of the petitioners appears to be that their representation, dated 02.08.2010, made to the third respondent is not considered till date.

¶9

Without going into the merits of the case and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of, directing the third respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation, dated 02.08.2010, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, if the same is still pending consideration. No order as to costs.

¶10

No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶11

_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶12

31.12.2015 gkv

Nakkala Chinna Kondalu v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nakkala Chinna Kondalu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chelcuri Venkatapathi Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

J. Santosh Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Chitturi Marimma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Rudraraju Sivaprasad Varma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

Mohd. Javeed Hussain, Vs The State of Telangana

D.Sudhakar Vs Barath Petroleum Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (Bpcl)