The writ petition was disposed of as not pressed by the counsel. The court observed that the Forest Department should consider recommendations made by the Advocates Committee and align decisions with Supreme Court orders.
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 THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 25087 OF 2005
04-04-2016
Between:
D. Busi Raju
… Petitioner
And The Govt. of A.P., rep., by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
… Respondents
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 25087 OF 2005
ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)
Learned Advocate General, at the outset, submits that the prayer made in the instant writ petition and the prayer made in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995 pending before the Supreme Court is similar and the orders passed in the said writ petition and interim applications filed therein, take care of the prayer made in the instant writ petition. In other words, he submits that the prayer made in the present writ petition has already been granted by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned writ petition and interim applications. He further submits that if the petitioner still claims that there exist illegal constructions, he can move the Supreme Court for appropriate relief. Similarly, he further submits that if any person claims that his construction/structure is outside the boundary, he can also approach the Supreme Court for seeking protection of his property.
Having confronted with this, Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this writ petition and seeks liberty to the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court, if the circumstances so demand.
Writ petition is disposed of as not pressed with liberty as prayed.
Before parting, we observe that the Forest Department may consider the recommendations made by Advocates Committee
constituted by this Court in the instant writ petition. We hope and trust that the Forest Department shall take appropriate decision at the earliest, consistent with the orders of the Supreme Court. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ
________________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J 04-04-2016 ks
D. Busi Raju
The Govt. of A.P.
Dilip B. Bhosale
P. Naveen Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
