Disposed

R.T. Masthanaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC25 Apr 2018WP/12320/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, Justice P.Naveen Rao addressed allegations of encroachment on burial grounds in Chellayapalem village. Dismissing general apprehensions about title disputes, the court directed the Tahsildar to demarcate and fence the burial ground within three months to prevent future litigation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to demarcate and fence the burial ground within three months.

R.T. Masthanaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.12320 OF 2018

¶3

Date: 25.04.2018

¶4

Between:

¶5

R.T.Masthanaiah, S/o. Chinnaiah, Aged about 65 years, R/o Chellayapalem Harijanavada, Buchireddypalem *M), SPSR Nellore District and others.

¶6

…..Petitioners and

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur district and others.

¶8

…..Respondents

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

PNR,J

¶11

W.P.No.12320 of 2018

¶12

¶13

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.12320 OF 2018

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This writ petition is filed alleging that in spite of complaining to the respondent authorities, they failed to inquire and take action on the representation submitted by petitioners on 05.02.2018, alleging that there are encroachments of burial ground in Sy.No.154/5 to an extent of Ac.0.10 cents and Sy.No.154/2 to an extent of Ac.0.87 cents and Ac.0.97 cents of Chellayapalem village, Buchireddypalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore district.

¶16

According to the instructions furnished to learned Government Pleader, extent of area earmarked for burial ground is not in dispute. However, according to learned Assistant Government Pleader, there is playground in Sy.No.155/1 to an extent of Ac.0.25 cents, which is classified as Poramboke in village accounts and there is no encroachment into burial ground as those two pieces of land are in different survey numbers. It is further stated that Ac.0.30 cents of land in Sy.No.155/1 is being utilized for dumping yard and the Tahsildar asserts that there are no encroachments into burial ground. In view of the same, apprehension expressed by the petitioners is not valid.

¶17

However, in order to avoid further litigation and further complications, Tahsildar (4^th respondent) is directed to ensure to demarcate and fence around the burial ground. Such steps should be taken immediately and completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶18

¶19

PNR,J

¶20

W.P.No.12320 of 2018

¶21

Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶23

Date: 25.04.2018 kkm

¶24

PNR,J W.P.No.12320 of 2018

¶25

¶26

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO.12320 OF 2018

¶28

Date: 25.04.2018

¶29

kkm

R.T. Masthanaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.T. Masthanaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Jami Gurunadha Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Harish Manjunath, Vs Prl.Secy., Revenue dept., State of T.S.

M/s. Cascade Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary

K.Ashok Kumar Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

C.Rachana Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

R. Sushmitha Reddy Vs State of Ts