Allowed

Nellore Sudhakar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC8 Mar 2018WP/7251/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an order directing petitioners to remove encroachments on a public road, as it was passed without providing notice or opportunity of being heard. The notice was treated as a show cause notice, directing authorities to furnish a survey report for consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; notice treated as show cause; Gram Panchayat directed to furnish survey report; status quo maintained until decision.

Nellore Sudhakar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

W RI T PETI TI ON No.7 2 5 1 OF 2 0 1 8

¶3

Dated: 08.03.2018

¶4

Between:

¶5

Nellore Sudhakar S/ o Kistaiah, Brahmadevam Village, Muthukuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and three others .... Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Amaravati, Guntur District and five others.

¶8

The Court made the following:

¶9

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶11

W RI T PETI TI ON No.7 2 5 1 OF 2 0 1 8

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj (AP) for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri G.Seshadri, learned Standing Counsel for 5^th respondent and Sri.K.L.N.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing 6^th respondent.

¶14

for

¶15

Petitioners challenge notice dated 26-02-2018. By this notice, the Brahmadevam Gram Panchayat alleges that petitioners are in encroachment of public road and directed them to remove the encroachments. The notice refers to order dated.05-12-2017 passed by this Court in W.P.No.40019 of 2017. A reading of the order, would show that one Mr.Chenchaiah complained that even though he made several representations for removal of encroachments in Panchayat land/ rasta admeasuring Ac.0.66 cents in the village, no action was taken. Having regard to this plea of the petitioner therein, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents therein to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of order and take action in accordance with law. A reading of the order would also show that learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Pancahyat represented that survey was conducted and as soon as they receive the report, action would be initiated.

¶16

The direction of this court was to consider the representation and to pass orders. There was no positive direction to remove encroachments. If the Gram Panchayat believed petitioners herein are in encroachment of public road, elementary principle required is

¶17

¶18

they should be put on notice by placing on record the relevant documents, by which such tentative decision is arrived, call for explanation and on considering the explanation to pass order. On the contrary, straight way order was passed directing to remove the encroachments as if a decision was already taken holding them encroaching public road. Learned counsel for respondents do not dispute that petitioner was not put on notice and was not afforded opportunity before passing impugned order.

¶19

Thus, this infirmity goes to the root, impugned order is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. Writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The order(termed as notice) dated 26-022018 shall be treated as show cause notice. The learned Standing Counsel also undertakes to instruct his client to furnish a copy of the survey report to the petitioners within three (3) days from today. The petitioners shall file their explanation within two (2) weeks from the date of furnishing survey report.

¶20

On considering the explanation, appropriate orders shall be passed by the Gram Panchayat. Until decision is taken and communicated to the petitioners, the 5^th respondent-Gram Panchayat shall maintain status quo obtaining as on today.

¶21

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶22

P. NAVEEN RAO, J

¶23

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

¶24

Date: 08.03.2018 TSNR

Nellore Sudhakar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nellore Sudhakar 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

Komma Raghavulu, Prakasam District and 4 Others Vs Prl Secy, Mines and Geology Dept, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Delta Refinery Limited, Hyd Vs Prl Secy, (Infra) Dept, Hyd and 3 Ot

Mahant Balveer Das Maharaj, Vs The State of Telangana

Dodda Venkata Ratnam and Tripuramallu Gurunadham Vs State of a.P., Rep. by its Principal

R Sai Reddy Vs Prl.Secy., Dept., Home, Hyd., and 5 Others

Sambhav Agro Industries, Vs The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture