Disposed

Kanasani Janardhana chari v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Nov 2019WP/25673/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, petitioners challenged plans to convert their cultivated land into a plastic waste dumping yard, alleging livelihood loss. Due to lack of proof regarding a prior representation, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to file a written application with supporting materials to the Tahsildar for consideration.

What did the court decide?

Returned liberty to the petitioners to make a written application to the Tahsildar with supporting material regarding their grievance and land possession.

Kanasani Janardhana chari Vs The State of… — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.25673 OF 2019

¶3

Date: 21.11.2019

¶4

Between:

¶5

Kanasani Janardhana Chari S/o.Appa Rao, 49 yrs, R/o.Burgampahad, Bhadradri Kothagudem, Telangana & others.

¶6

And

¶7

The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary for Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others.

¶8

The Court made the following:

¶9

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO.25673 OF 2019

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri G.Narender Reddy, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.5.

¶14

Petitioners claim that they are eking out their livelihood by cultivating small extents of land for several years. Petitioners apprehend that in the process of collecting plastic waste, the respondent authorities have now decided to establish a dumping yard in the land which is in their occupation and enjoyment and in such an event, grave prejudice would be caused to them for their sustenance. Alleging that such action is not valid and requesting the Revenue Divisional Officer not to use the land in their possession for dumping purpose, a representation was made on 14.09.2019 and alleging in action on the said representation, this writ petition is filed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since a representation was already made, a direction be issued to dispose of the same within a reasonable time.

¶16

However, learned Government Pleader points out that there is no proof of submission of representation, therefore, the prayer sought cannot be granted.

¶17

Having regard to the submission that there is no proof of submission of representation, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to petitioners to make an application in writing addressed to the Tahsildar, Burgampahad, Bhadradri

¶18

¶19

Kothagudem-4^th respondent requesting him to look into their grievance with supporting material that they are in possession and enjoyment and that the land in their possession and enjoyment is now sought to be converted for dumping purposes and on making such representation, the Tahsildar, shall consider the same objectively and pass appropriate orders, as warranted by law, by assigning due reasons in support of the same, within six weeks of receipt of such application. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶20

___________________
P.NAVEEN RAO, J
21 st November, 2019
Rds

Kanasani Janardhana chari v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanasani Janardhana chari 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

Ushasri Ventures and Developers Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Sri. a. Yelraj Vs The State of Telangana

S.Shyam Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Smt D.K.Shruthi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

R. Jawaharlal and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Sri. Kinnera Kanakaiah Vs The state of Telangana, And 14 Others