Disposed

K. Bhaskar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC25 Jul 2016WP/23983/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking mandamus to restrain respondents from removing the petitioner's bed (Arugu) without issuing notice or following due process of law. The court directed respondents not to remove the bed without adhering to legal procedure.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents not to remove the Arugu in front of the petitioner's house without following due process of law.

K. Bhaskar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.23983 OF 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in threatening to remove the bed (Arugu) which is used to sit in front of petitioner’s house bearing No.3-96 of Lakshmipuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Ulindakonda Post, Kurnool District without issuing notice and following of due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents to stop the action in removing the bed (Arugu) in front of the house mentioned above.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that his father purchased an open land admeasuring 160 square feet from one K.Ramanjaneyulu under a registered sale deed dated 09.11.2006 vide document No.14619 of 2006, dated 09.11.2006. Thereafter, his father constructed a house along with a bed (Arugu). The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents herein made hectic attempts to remove the Arugu in front of the house for the purpose of laying of pipe line.

¶7

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 4 will not remove the Arugu in front of the house of the petitioner without following the procedure as contemplated under the Gram Panchayat Act.

¶8

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for both parties, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are hereby directed not to remove the Arugu in front of the petitioner’s house bearing No.3-96 of

¶9

Lakshmipuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Ulindakonda Post, Kurnool

¶10

District without following due process of law.

¶11

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶12

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶13

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 25.07.2016 Ivd

K. Bhaskar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Bhaskar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padala Srinivasa Rao Vs Madireddy Adinarayana

M.Madhuri, Vs N.Madhava Naidu

J. Suchitha, Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation

M/s. v.S.Constructions(Adi Builders), Vs The Chief Managing Director

Jeejula Sagar Vs The State of Telangna

Nagaraju Venkayamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh