Disposed

V. Gouri Prasad, v. Regional Deputy DirectorTown and Country Planning

Telangana HC25 Jan 2016WP/24203/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Acting Chief Justice and Justice S.V. Bhatt disposed of W.P. No.24203 of 2003 involving a dispute over dismantling a road. The Court declined to adjudicate factual disputes on the road's existence but directed the District Collector to invite objections, enquire into the land's nature, and decide on conversion, completing the exercise within three months while maintaining interim status.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Collector to call objections, enquire into land nature, and pass orders within three months; interim maintenance of road status.

V. Gouri Prasad, Vs Regional Deputy DirectorTown and… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶4

W.P.No.24203 OF 2003

¶5

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice S.V.Bhatt)

¶6

Heard Mr.Md.Ajmal Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents.

¶7

The petitioners pray for Mandamus holding that the action of respondents 3 and 4 in attempting to dismantle the road known as ‘Gollikunta Katta’ at Korutla proper and Mandal, Karimnagar District and converting the said road into house sites, as illegal and unconstitutional.

¶8

On 28.07.2004 in W.P.M.P.No.30463 of 2003, this Court has passed the following order:

¶9

“In spite of granting innumerable opportunities, the 4^th respondent did not file any counter affidavit controverting the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent is vague and indefinite and in no matter meets the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Likewise, the counter affidavit filed by the

¶10

1^st respondent-Regional Deputy Director, does not advert to the question raised in the writ petition. It is not known, as to why, the District Collector is silently watching without making any enquiry whatsoever into the matter. No counter affidavit has been filed by the District Collector. In the circumstances, there shall be a direction to respondents 3 and 4 not to take any further steps whatsoever to dismantle, alter or modify the existing road known as Gollikunta Katta at Korutla proper & mandal, Karimnagar District. The land shall not be converted into house sites.

¶11

The possession existing as on today in all respects shall be maintained during the pendency of the writ petition”.

¶12

The said order is subsisting as on date. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made detailed submissions on the existence of road known as ‘Gollikunta Katta’ and the submission of petitioners are opposed on all fours by contending that there is no road at all. The submissions of learned counsel are required to be examined by deciding various disputed questions of fact. We are of the view that in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and more particularly having regard to the stand taken in the counter affidavit, we are not inclined to examine and decide the issue. We are satisfied that the writ petition can be disposed of by this order.

¶13

“The District Collector/2^nd respondent is directed to call for objections on the subject road/subject land from not only the petitioners but also from general public, enquire into the nature of land and pass appropriate orders either on the existence of a road or the necessity to convert the subject land into house sites for assignment to poor and eligible persons. The decision/order so made shall be communicated to the petitioners.

¶14

The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

The interim order granted on 28.07.2004 is directed to be maintained for a period of three months from today or till a decision is taken and communicated by the 2^nd respondent to petitioners herein”.

¶16

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶18

DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶19

S.V.BHATT, J

¶20

Date: 25.01.2016 Lrkm

V. Gouri Prasad, v. Regional Deputy DirectorTown and Country Planning

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Gouri Prasad, v. Regional Deputy DirectorTown and Country Planning

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

M/s. Ganapathi Educational Society, Vs The Warangal Municipal Corporation

Manupati Nagamani Vs The State of A.P.

The Principal, Vs L. Vaishnavi

G Sudharshan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Prof Kodanda Rama Reddy, Vs The union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests

Vedire Venkat Reddy, Vs The Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests