Disposed

Rowthu Appalanaidu v. The District Collector, Vizianagaram

Telangana HC26 Dec 2016WP/28522/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-conduct of an enquiry. It directed the respondents to consider fresh applications from the petitioners after they file necessary documents to satisfy the rehabilitation package conditions, noting a lack of prior opportunity in the earlier proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to consider fresh applications if petitioners file necessary documents.

Rowthu Appalanaidu Vs The District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.28522 OF 2008

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not conducting any enquiry as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to declare the petitioners as eligible beneficiaries as displaced families under R & R package of Thotapalli Barrage of Vizianagaram District.

¶5

Counter affidavit is filed by the 3^rd respondent denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Along with the counter affidavit, the report of the enquiry conducted by the 3^rd respondent in respect of each petitioner is also filed holding that the petitioners are ineligible for the benefit under the R & R Package and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the petitioners have filed all the documents, they have not been given proper opportunity to pursue their case.

¶8

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that if the petitioners files necessary proof and if they satisfy the conditions mentioned in the subject package, their cases will be considered.

¶9

A perusal of the proceedings dated 09.09.2009 wherein the petitioners were declared as ineligible for the package, does not show that petitioners were given opportunity, before passing the impugned proceedings.

¶10

In view of the same, it is open for the petitioners to make applications by filing all necessary documents before the 3^rd respondent. On such applications, the 3^rd respondent may consider the same and pass appropriate orders in terms of Policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation for Project Affected Families, 2005.

¶11

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto,

¶12

miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶13

____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 27.12.2016 kvs

¶14

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.28522 OF 2008

¶16

Date: 27.12.2016

¶17

kvs

Rowthu Appalanaidu v. The District Collector, Vizianagaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rowthu Appalanaidu v. The District Collector, Vizianagaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. v. Jyothi W/o. v.Anil Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana

Chinnapureddy Brahmareddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. v. Surendra Kumar, S/o Subba Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep, by its Prl. Secretary

Smt. Fateemunnisa Vs The Special officer and Competent Authority

Mohd.Abdulla Mohiuddin Vs a.P.State Road Transport Corporation, rep.by its

P. Rama Krishna Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Trasport Corporation