Remanded

Durga Narayana Swamy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Telangana HC25 Apr 2017WP/13256/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of three inter-related writ petitions concerning aquaculture permissions versus objections from neighbouring agricultural land holders. Direction was issued for simultaneous consideration of applications and objections with stakeholder notice, to be decisive within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Director to consider aquaculture applications and objections simultaneously with stakeholder notice and decide within six weeks.

Durga Narayana Swamy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.13256 & 4348 of 2017 and 42015 of 2016

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Since these three writ petitions are inter-related, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by way of this common order.

¶5

Heard and perused the record.

¶6

Petitioners in WP No.13256 of 2017 and 4348 of 2017 are the same and they are respondent Nos.7 to 9 in WP No.42015 of 2016. According to the petitioners in WP No.13256 of 2017 provisional permission for digging the tanks for aquaculture has been granted by the authorities on 23.05.2016 and applications for final permission are pending before the 2^nd respondent. According to the petitioners in WP No.42015 of 2016, they are Ryots having lands in the vicinity where the lands of the petitioners in WP Nos.13256 and 4348 of 2017 are situated.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP No.42015 of 2016 that their lands are agricultural wet lands and if the petitioners in WP Nos.13256 and 4348 of 2017, who are respondent Nos.7 to 9, are permitted to carry on aquaculture in their lands, the lands of the petitioners in WP No.42015 of 2016 would become saline and useless. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP No.42015 of 2016 the agricultural lands cannot be permitted to convert for aquaculture. Admittedly, in the present matter, the applications for final permission are pending consideration before the 2^nd respondent.

¶8

Having heard the arguments of the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be served if the

¶9

¶10

2^nd respondent is directed to consider the applications of the petitioners in WP Nos.13256 and 4348 of 2017 for grant of final permission and the objections of the petitioners in WP No.42015 of 2016 simultaneously, after giving notice to all the stakeholders, and take decision in the matter.

¶11

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the applications of the petitioners in WP Nos.13256 and 4348 of 2017 for grant of final permission as per law, and also the objections of the petitioners in WP No.42015 of 2016 simultaneously, after giving notice to all the stakeholders, and take decision in the matter. This exercise shall be completed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶12

No order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this writ petition shall also stand dismissed.

¶13

_______________ A.V. SESHA SAI, J

¶14

April 25, 2017 Note:

¶15

Furnish CC in three (3) days. B/O. KTL

Durga Narayana Swamy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durga Narayana Swamy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

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

Meka Koti Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chevulla Maddi Chandravva Vs Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

M B Reddy and 67 Othrs Vs Prl.Secretary ( La) and 6 Others

Sunkavalli Veerabhadra Rao Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Karunamaya Constructions, Vs The Singareni Colleries Company Limited

N.Dada Peer Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Principal