Disposed

V.Sathi Reddy, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Sept 2016WP/29312/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 challenging inaction on a representation, the Supreme Court disposed of the matter directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation regarding alleged encroachment on protected land and pass appropriate orders within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 18.6.2016 and pass appropriate orders within three weeks.

V.Sathi Reddy, Vs State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.29312 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 inaction on the part of the second respondent in taking any action on the representation of the petitioners dated 18.6.2016 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

Heard Sri A.Abhishek Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned standing counsel for second respondent–Pedda Amberpet Nagara Panchayat.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioners that they are protected tenants of an extent of Acs.2.25 guntas in survey No.47 and an extent of Acs.1.29 guntas in survey No.48 of Pedda Amberpet Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is the further case of the petitioners that they were put in possession of the said lands in pursuance of the proceedings issued by the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Hayathnagar dated 04.10.2008. It is the also case of the petitioners that the third respondent is making constructions in the lands of the petitioners without any right or authority. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners submitted a representation dated 18.6.2016 to the second respondent to take appropriate action against the third respondent. For one reason or the other, the representation is pending with the second respondent.

¶7

At the time of the arguments, the only relief sought by the learned counsel for the petitioners is to direct the second

¶8

¶9

respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 18.6.2016 as early as possible. The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent has also consented for disposal of the representation of the petitioners. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition without going into the merits of the main case.

¶10

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 18.6.2016 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition shall

¶11

stand closed.
________________________
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J
September 01, 2016.
YS

V.Sathi Reddy, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Sathi Reddy, v. State of Telangana

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

Kuppampalli Fisherman CooperativeSociety Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jakkena Shankar, Vs The State of Telangana

Gummadi Raja Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Sahukari Janardhan Rao, S/o. Late Vasu Deva Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

K.Ramachandra Rao, Vs Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation

G. Prabhakar Rao, Vs The State of Telangana