Dismissed

Poolapally Sunder Yadav S/o Late P. Balaiah yadav v. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

Telangana HC21 Dec 2015WP/5305/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the inaction of respondents in evicting encroachers from government land was disposed without a writ. The court observed that government action was pending in lower levels and held that the writ does not lie where authorities have already initiated proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus not issued; proceeding disposed; pending applications closed.

Poolapally Sunder Yadav S/o Late P. Balaiah yadav Vs The… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶2

Writ Petition No.5305 of 2005

¶3

Date:21.12.2015

¶4

Between: Poolapally Sunder Yadav, Hyderabad. And The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others.

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

… Respondents

¶7

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶9

Writ Petition No.5305 of 2005

¶10

Order: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

Petitioner, in the instant writ petition, seeks the following relief:

¶13

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying Affidavit it is prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction(s) essentially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents herein in protecting the Government land to an extent of 2 Acres and 17 Guntas in Survey No.278 of Malkajagiri Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as per the Report of the Mandal Surveyor in Proceedings Dated 17-09-1996 by taking appropriate action to evict the encroachers as bad, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents herein to evict the encroachers from Survey No.278 of Malkajagiri Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and pass any such other Order or Orders as this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case.”

¶14

This matter appeared before the Court during last ten years only once and, that is, on 23.3.2005. Rule was issued. No interim order of whatsoever nature was passed by this Court. Against this

¶15

backdrop, learned Government Pleader submits that the Government had taken steps against the encroachers under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’) and orders are also passed against the encroachers. Against those orders, he submits, the aggrieved persons have filed petitions in this Court and this Court, in view of their applications seeking regularization, granted protection of their possession. Learned Government Pleader submits that they are pursuing the matter further.

¶16

In view thereof, we are not inclined to keep this matter pending further and it is disposed of as such. We, however observe that the Government shall take the action initiated by them against the encroachers to its logical conclusion.

¶17

Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications shall also stand closed. No costs.

¶18

DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶19

_________________ S.V. BHATT, J

¶20

21^st December, 2015

¶21

Pnb

Poolapally Sunder Yadav S/o Late P. Balaiah yadav v. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poolapally Sunder Yadav S/o Late P. Balaiah yadav v. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Andhra Pradesh Olympic Association Hyd Vs Prl Secy Min of Youth Affairms and Sa New Delhi and 3 Others

Dr. R. Vijay Kumar S/o R. Samuel, Vs Nrt University of Health Sciences

Kadapa Rajamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Abdul Aziz Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

P.Jayabharath Reddy, S/o. P.T. Veera Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Nellipudi Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principle