Disposed

Shaik Sitar v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC1 Feb 2016PIL/199/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Acting Chief Justice and Justice Bhatt disposed of P.I.L. No. 199 of 2015 regarding alleged water source encroachment. The court observed that respondents admitted the encroachment and initiated proceedings, leading to the PIL being disposed of without further relief.

What did the court decide?

The PIL was disposed of. The court directed respondent No. 6 to follow due procedure.

Shaik Sitar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶2

AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶4

P.I.L No. 199 OF 2015

¶5

01.02.2016

¶6

Between: Shaik Silar, West Godavari District.

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Saifabad, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶11

AND

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶13

P.I.L No. 199 OF 2015

¶14

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

¶15

Heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri D. Ramesh, learned Special Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4; learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings for respondent Nos.3 and 5; Sri Ravi Cheemalapati, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.6 and Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 and 9. None appears for respondent No.7.

¶16

The petitioner, in the instant PIL, seeks the following relief:

¶17

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of Respondents 1 to 6 in not preventing encroachments made by 7 to 9 Respondents in an extent of Ac. 0.43 cents in R.S.No. 320/1A and an extent of Ac. 0.11 cents in R.S.No.320/2 of Samisrigudem Village of Nidadavolu Mandal is illegal, irregular, arbitrary, against the interests of pubic at large and violative of provisions of The WALTA Act 2005, and Board Revenue Standing Orders and rules framed there under and also offends Articles 14 & 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to take all measures to protect the water sources in and around the Nidadavolu Mandal, West Godavari District and pass such other orders or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶18

Respondent No.6 - Gram Panchayat has filed an affidavit stating that they have already initiated action against respondent Nos.7 to 9 for the alleged encroachment, as stated in the prayer clause, and they shall take the action initiated by them to its logical conclusion.

¶19

Learned Special Government Pleader and learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings state that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 also admit that there is an encroachment and that they support the action initiated by respondent No.6 against respondent Nos.7 to 9.

¶20

In view thereof, nothing further survives in the PIL.

¶21

PIL is accordingly disposed of. We, however, observe that the concerned respondents, in particular, respondent No.6, shall follow due procedure.

¶22

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶23

DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶24

S.V. BHATT, J

¶25

Date: 01.02.2016

¶26

Shaik Sitar v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Sitar v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G Sudharshan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S. a. Sampath Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana

Pamulapati Krishna Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

M.Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Pragathi Pariyavarana Parirakshna Samithi, Vs Union of India

D.v.R.Raju, S/o Late Sri D.Satyanarayana Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd Abdul Qader , Shafath Vs The Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally, Hyderabad.

Chetupally Muralidhar Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

N.Nagaiah Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Y.Rajagopal Vs The State of Andha Paradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Vuppaia Subbarao , Vs The State of A.P.

The Khadher Memorial Education Society, Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Jntu)

The Students of Boyyalagudem. Upper Primary School, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Chief Secretary

T.Jeevan Reddy s/o. Ramachandra Reddy Vs The State of Telangana