Remanded

Prathapaneni Babu Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC19 Aug 2015WP/26222/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition regarding a compound wall blocking a public road on gramakantam land was disposed of. The court directed the Gram Panchayat to consider the petitioner's legal explanation and refrain from coercive demolition steps for six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent Gram Panchayat to consider the explanation and pass appropriate orders within six weeks, without taking coercive demolition steps during this period.

Prathapaneni Babu Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

¶3

	WRIT PETITION NO.26222 of 2015
Betw	een:
Prath Aged R/o Chitt	apaneni Babu Rao, S/o Krishnama Naidu, about 55 years, Occu: Cultivation, Munagalapalem Village, Yerpedu Mandal, oor District
	AND	.... Petitioner
The Rura	State of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj and l Development Department, Secretariat,
Saifa and	bad, Hyderabad, rep.by its Principal Secretary others.	…. Respondents
DAT	E OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 19.08.2015
SUB	MITTED FOR APPROVAL:
	THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
1.	Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may : Yes / No Be allowed to see the Judgments ? :
2.	Whether the copies of judgment may be marked: Yes / No to Law Reporters/Journals :
3.	Whether Their Lordship wish to see the fair : Yes / No Copy of the Judgment ? :

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.26222 of 2015

¶5

ORDER:

¶6

Alleging that petitioner has constructed the compound wall blocking the public road and the land on which such construction was made is classified as ‘gramakantam’ and that on account of such construction, grave inconvenience is caused to the villagers, notice is issued calling upon petitioner to file explanation supported by material evident to show that he is entitled to construct such compound wall and that land belongs to him. Petitioner responded to the said notice in the form of legal notice through counsel dated 29.04.2015 and another legal notice dated 18.05.2015. So far no orders are passed. However, alleging that authorities have visited the premises on 13.08.2015 with men and material to demolish the compound wall, this writ petition is filed.

¶7

2. There is no material filed to show that such a hasty action is taken now having kept quiet for more than three months. Be that as it may, notice is issued to the petitioner to submit his explanation and explanation in the form of legal notice through the counsel is already filed. Therefore, respondent Gram Panchayat is directed to consider the explanation in the form of legal notice and pass appropriate orders as warranted by law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until final orders are passed as directed, respondent Gram Panchayat shall not take any coercive steps to demolish the compound wall of the petitioner.

¶8

3. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶9

__________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶10

Date : 19.08.2015 kkm

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶12

kkm

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.26222 of 2015

¶14

Date: 19.08.2015

Prathapaneni Babu Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prathapaneni Babu Rao v. The 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

K. Venkata Muralidhar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

K. Venkata Muralidhar, Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

Ivrcl Infrastructures and Projects Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Badugu Arjun Rao, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

G. Raveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Vazirani Mohini Haresh, Vs The Hyderabad Water Supply and Sewarage Board