Disposed

Vemula Srinivasulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary

Telangana HC28 Mar 2016PIL/191/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL concerning a disputed water body at Avilala Village, the Court accepted an undertaking from the 7th respondent owner to refrain from construction without statutory approvals. The Court directed status quo and disposed of the matter while reserving final determination of land status to the concerned authorities.

What did the court decide?

Undertaking accepted; order for maintainance of status quo issued; PIL disposed of.

Vemula Srinivasulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

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

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶3

PIL No. 191 OF 2015

¶4

28-03-2016

¶5

Between:

¶6

Vemula Srinivasulu

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

And

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary, Irrigation and Command Area Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO PIL No. 191 OF 2015

¶12

PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

This public interest litigation (PIL) seeks direction to the respondents to see that the water body in Sy.No.377 to the extent of Acs.17.18 cents (Oteru Cheruvu) situated at Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District is maintained and protected without being converted into house plots/sites or any other commercial activity.

¶15

The 7^th respondent has raised a dispute regarding status of the land based upon revenue record and some old orders of the Government. We do not propose to examine the record and record any finding as to the status of the land. The official respondents filed counter affidavit dated 26-08-2015 and in paragraphs 4 and 5 therein, have stated thus:

¶16

“It is submitted that, the subject land in S.No.377 is classified as “Government Dry” and is an unoccupied land and i.e, anaadheenam land during survey settlement operations and was published in the year 1916 by the then British Government. It was clearly furnished the categories of the land in the descriptive memoir of Resurvey Settlement Register of Avilala village and is binding. Later on inspection by the then Sub Collector, Chandragiri the land was since receiving the water and being a water spread area merged with the tank existing in the adjacent S.No.376 the classification of the subject land in S.No.377 was also changed as tank poramboke on dt.9-8-1925 vide Dis.887/24.

¶17

It is further submitted that, the land has been subdivided in recent time while a part of land is required for formation of National Highway for public purpose and in the

¶18

interest of public. At the time of formation of Renigunta – Chandragiri, Tirupati bye pass road in the year 2003-2004, the land in S.No.377 was sub-divided and denoted as S.No.377/1 measuring 7.53 acres Tank, S.No.377/2 measuring 3.95 acres is classified as NH Road and S.No.377/3 measuring 5.70 acres is classified as Tank and is being maintained.”

¶19

From the contents of the counter affidavit, it is clear that the official respondents as on today claim that the land in dispute is a water body. In view thereof, on last occasion, we had directed the 7^th respondent to file affidavit/undertaking stating that he shall not make any construction whatsoever in the land in dispute without obtaining statutory permissions from the concerned authorities. The 7^th respondent has accordingly filed affidavit/undertaking dated 20-032016. Paragraph 2 of the affidavit reads thus:

¶20

“I submit that on 14-03-2016 during the hearing of the PIL, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct me to file an undertaking that I should obtain all the statutory permissions before making any construction in the land purchased by me in Sy.No.377 of Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶21

Accordingly in obedience of this Hon’ble Court directions, I am filing this affidavit undertaking that, unless I obtain statutory permissions from the respective statutory authorities, I will not make any construction in my land i.e. an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No. 377 of Avilala village purchased by me under a sale deed dt. 05.03.2004 executed by Mr. B. Jayarami Reddy and registered as Document No. 1735/2004, O/o. Sri Balaji District Registrar Office, Tirupati.”

¶22

The affidavit/undertaking given by the 7^th respondent is recorded and accepted. Having regard to over all facts and circumstances of the case and averments made by parties in the proceedings and considering the affidavit/undertaking of the 7^th respondent, we are satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice.

¶23

“The 7^th respondent shall maintain status quo insofar as the land in dispute is concerned. In other words, the 7^th respondent shall not make any development in the land or change nature of the land. It

¶24

is open to the 7^th respondent to seek necessary permissions, for raising construction in the said land, from the concerned authority, and if the 7^th respondent seeks such permission, the concerned authorities shall examine his application on merits in accordance with law and unless they are satisfied that the land in question is not a water body, may proceed to pass appropriate order on the application. It is open to the 7^th respondent to place material, as he deems fit and proper before the concerned authority in support of his case.

¶25

It is once again made clear that the 7^th respondent shall not make any construction in the land in question without obtaining permissions from the concerned authorities. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the concerned authority shall take decision in accordance with law. This order shall not preclude the 7^th respondent from approaching civil Court, if he so desires and advised, to seek appropriate relief/declaration in respect of the land in question.”

¶26

With these observations, PIL is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶27

_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶28

________________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J 28-03-2016 ks

Vemula Srinivasulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vemula Srinivasulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary

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

Mohd Rafi, Vs The State of Telangana

Watch - Voice of the People, Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Katakam Mruthyunjayam, Vs State of Telangana

Mohammed Azam Vs The State of Telangana

Save Our Urban Lakes, a Social Organisation, Vs The Government of Telangana

All India Federation of Tax Practitioners, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

All India Federation of Tax Practitioners, Vs State of Telangana

Chitneedi Narayana Murthy, S/o. Late Surya Rao, Vs The State Election Commission

B.L.C. Sastri, Vs The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar

Dr. B. Lakshmikantha Sastry, son of late Dwarakanatha Vs The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar

B.L.C.Sastry, s/o. Late Suryanarayana Sastri Vs The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar

M.J . Jagadeeshwar S/o M. janardhan Vs State of Andhra PRadesh rep by Principal Secretary

Animal Rescue Organisation, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

C.Bal Venkat Reddy S/o C.Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh