The High Court disposed of a PIL concerning land allotment to tribals, noting that possession had been granted, rendering further orders unnecessary.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FORTHE STATEOFTELANGANA AT HYOERABAD
TUESDAY, THEFOURTH DAY OFJANUARY TWO THOUSANDANDTWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLETHE CHIEFJUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
PUBLIC INTERESTLITIGATIONNO: 364 OF2012
Between:
Caot. J. Rama Rao,S/o J. Venkata Rao' Aged about 83 years, R/o 15'11 'Valley View' Robd tto.t2, BanjaraHi s. Hyderabad 500034.
...pETtTloNER
AND
RES'ONDENTS
PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed therewith, the Highcourtmaybe pleased to issue an appropriatewrit, orderor direction, more particularly one in the nature of in thenature of writ of mandamus:
il2il
PILMP. NO: 490 0F20'12
PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecirCumstanCbsstatedin the affidavit filedin support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.1,2,3,5,6& 8 to payan interim compensation of Rs 1 00'0001 peracretothepattedarSortheirlegalheirsmentionedintheproceedings No.Ot445l1977 dated20.02.1983of the ForestSettlement Officer,Khammam Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI' GANDRA MOHANRAO
counsel for the RespondentNo.'l:GP FORGENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Counsel for theRespondentNos.2 & 5: GP FOR FORESTS
Counsel for the RespondentNo.3, 6 & 8: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the RespondentNos.4 & 7: GP FORSOCIAL WELFARE
The Court made the following:ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIqE IiBIIINA!.ID KUMAR SIIAY]!!
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.364 of2012
ORDER: lPcrthei1o't bt. !it. {:ttel./Lsr.e.Sar,shChandr.r Sharmal
Learned counsel lor the petitioner, at the outset, has informed this Court that the State Government has a-llotted the land to the Tribals during thependency of thepresent public interest litigarion. He has stated that the land rvas allotted earlier, ho\,ever, possession has beengivenafter 30 vearrs. He has fr-trther stated that so far the allotment of land is concerned, the grievance has been remedied.However, his contention is that some compensation begranted tothe Tribals,g,ho have beenplaced inpossession.
In the considered opinion ofthis Court, once the land has already been allotted and the allotteeshave been placed irr possession, no further ordersare requiredto be passedin the present public interest litigation.
The public interest litigation standsdisposed of accordingly. The miscellaneousapplications pending,if any,
shall stand closed. There shall beno order as to costs'
\
l{-ss+iffit'uYFH //TRUE coPY// La' \
SECTIONOFFICER
HIGH COURT
DATED:04/0112022
ORDER
E STA rcr
q. (
k
o() 25 FEB 2022
P.l.L.No.364 of 2012
DISPOSING OF THEP.!.1. WITHOUT COSTS
(-)
L...-
Z,-- !
Cot. J. Rama Rao
The Government of Andhra Pradesh
Satish Chandra Sharma
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
