The High Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage, holding it unnecessary to go into merits. The court directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation within twelve weeks.
Directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioners representation dated 05.07.2011 within twelve weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 17353 OF 2012
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. With the consent of both parties, the present Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.
The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the inaction of the first respondent in disposing of the representation made by the petitioner on 06.07.2011 which was received by the first respondent on 08.07.2011 as illegal and arbitrary.
The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition would show that the petitioner is an agriculturist, possessing land admeasuring Acs.4.35 cents in Survey No.191 of Rajugari Beedu of Payakarapeta Village. It is stated that on the northern side of the said land there is Government road and towards the north side of it in Survey Nos.175 and 176, one Vadapalli Krishnam Raju and his brothers own land admeasuring Acs.6.45 cents, wherein, they made a panchayat layout and sold away the plots in the said layout. In the said process, they enclosed Government land towards south in Survey Nos.162, 180 and 191 leading from burial ground of Payakaraopeta to Pethanandi lake. It is further stated that the panchayat officials sanctioned the layout enclosing the Government road illegally and the same was published in newspaper. Subsequently, when the petitioner complained about the same to the Tahsildar, he got the lands surveyed and fixed boundaries by erecting stones demarcating the road on northern side of the land of the petitioner. It is stated that a month thereafter, the said Krishnam Raju colluding with the panchayat officials removed the boundary stones. When the said act was questioned by the petitioners, they were alleged to have given evasive replies. The said road is said to be in unauthorized occupation of the private persons obstructing public road. The petitioner is said to have made several representations seeking action, but the same in vain. Subsequently, on 05.07.2011, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents for immediate and appropriate action and he also approached the second and third respondents several times after the service of the representation dated 05.07.2011, but nothing happened. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
The only grievance urged by the petitioner is the inaction of the respondents in not considering representation dated 05.07.2011. Learned Government Pleader submits that the same may be directed to the disposed of, if the same is still pending consideration, in accordance with law.
Without going into merits of the case and having regard to the above said circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to dispose of the representation dated 05.07.2011 made by the petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law. No costs.
Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
07.01.2016
vhb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition regarding the non-disposal of the petitioner's representation should be disposed of at the admission stage.
Whether the first respondent is directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 05.07.2011 within a specified time.
Agriculturist
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
C. Praveen Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
