Disposed

Sunkavalli Veerabhadra Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Apr 2017WP/13685/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge issued an order on a writ petition filed by a landowner claiming illegal interference with his patta land for agricultural water works. The court held that since the petitioner's representation was pending, it directed the District Collector to verify the representation and take appropriate action.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner was directed to submit a representation to the District Collector which the collector was directed to verify and take appropriate action.

Sunkavalli Veerabhadra Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.13685 OF 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶6

“declaring the action of respondents in interfering with possession and enjoyment of land admeasuring Ac.300 gts in Suvey No.249 of Aswaraopet Village and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem (Khammam) District, without following procedure and without paying compensation for the land taken for excavation of canal, constructing filter beds and storage tank in the patta land of petitioner in survey No. 229 and 248 of Aswaraopet Village and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem (Khammam) District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the respondents, not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of land admeasuring Ac.3-00 gts in survey No. 249 of Aswaraopet Village and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem (Khammam) District, till proper compensation is paid for the patta land admeasuring Ac.300 gts situated in survey No. 229 and 248 of Aswaraopet Village and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem (Khammam) District of petitioner acquired by the respondents for excavation of canals, filter beds and electrical lines and storage tank.”

¶7

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶8

The information available before this Court manifestly shows that for redressal of grievance of the petitioner, the petitioner herein submitted a representation on 02.03.2017 to the District Collector, Badradri-Kothagudem District, but no action has been taken on the said representation. He

¶9

¶10

further submitted that the respondents are taking possession of the subject property under mission Kakatiya scheme.

¶11

Considering the fact that the representation, dated 02.03.2017, said to have been submitted by the petitioner is pending consideration, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the District Collector-6^th respondent herein to verify the aforesaid representation, dated 02.03.2017, and take appropriate action in the matter.

¶12

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition

¶13

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

__________________
A.V.SESHA SAI, J
APRIL 25, 2017
Note:
Furnish C.C. tomorrow.
(B/o)
YVL

¶15

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.13685 OF 2017

¶18

Date: 25.04.2017

¶19

YVL

Sunkavalli Veerabhadra Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunkavalli Veerabhadra Rao v. The State of Telangana

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

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

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

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