Disposed

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

Telangana HC19 Jan 2016PIL/338/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL sought directions to safeguard the Godavari River bund in Vadapalli Village from illegal occupiers and order fencing. The court noted encroachments were already removed and a Gram Panchayat resolution sought fencing permission. It directed the respondent to take a decision within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the respondent to take a decision on fencing the river bund within two weeks failing which appropriate action may be taken.

M.Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary — Telangana HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

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

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶3

P.I.L.No.338 OF 2015

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the patties.

¶6

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

¶7

“…..this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents to safe guard the river bund of Godavari River, situated at Vadapalli Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District from the illegal occupiers/grabbers, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice consequently direct the respondents to safe guard the river bund of Godavari River, situated at Vadapalli Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District from the illegal occupiers/grabbers, and pass…….”

¶8

Respondent No.8, in reply to the writ petition, filed counter affidavit of the Divisional Panchayat Officer dated 10.12.2015 and in paragraphs 7 and 8 stated thus:

¶9

“In reply to Para 9 & 10 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the contention of the petitioners that the Government Respondents should not be silent in this regard without taking action is not at all genuine. It is submitted that the Gram Panchayat, Vadapalli in its special meeting Resolution No.146 dated 10.07.2015 resolved to take up the beautification of the area of the said river bund by erecting a fencing through out the bund area, after receipt of permission orders from the Irrigation Department. It is also submitted that at present no encroachments are there on the river bund.

¶10

In reply to Para 11 & 12 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the encroachments on the River Bund was removed on 08.07.2015 by the Gram Panchayat authorites, Revenue and Irrigation Departments and by the Panchayat Secretary, Vadapalli Gram

¶11

Panchayat Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District now there is no any encroachments on the River Bund. All the encroachments were removed by the above said officials on 8.07.2015. Vadapalli Gram Panchayat has already passed a special Resolution No.146 dated: 10.07.2015 to erect fencing on the River Bund. It is submitted that after receipt of the permission from the Irrigation Department action would

¶12

be initiated for erecting the fencing to avoid any encroachments on the River Bund in future.”

¶13

Mr. K.V.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that if the Gram Panchayat is allowed to take up beautification of the area of the river bund by erecting fencing throughout the bund area that will satisfy the petitioner and the people in the village. Yesterday, we had directed learned Government Pleader to take instructions as to within how much time the concerned respondent shall take the decision, as requested by the Gram Panchayat vide its Resolution No.146

¶14

dated 10.07.2015 and as stated in the aforementioned paragraphs of their counter affidavit. Today Mr. D.Ramesh, learned Special Government Pleader, submits that the concerned respondent shall take decision within a period of 10 days from today. His submissions is recorded and accepted.

¶15

In view thereof, the 2^nd respondent is directed to take decision, as requested by the Gram Panchayat vide their Resolution No.146 dated 10.07.2015, within a period of two weeks from today, failing which, it is made clear, this Court may take appropriate action against the concerned officer. Learned Government Pleader is directed to communicate this order to the concerned officer on or before 22.01.2016.

¶16

PIL is disposed of in terms of this order.

¶17

Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, also

¶18

stand disposed of.

¶19

_____________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶20

________________ S.V.BHATT, J Date: 19.01.2016 Stp/Lrkm

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Y. Sambasiva Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Goruputi Demudu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kolli Rajagopal Reddy S/o. Dasaradha Rami Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its

Dadisetti Ramalingeswara Rao (Raja), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

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

G Sudharshan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kouju Mohana Anjaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Y. Sambasiva Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Goruputi Demudu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kolli Rajagopal Reddy S/o. Dasaradha Rami Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its

Miss K. Sahasra Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sankza Satyanarayana Vs Commissioner of Survey and Settlements

Shaik Ashiraph Ali Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh