Disposed

Samala Santosh Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Mar 2022WP/5978/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Telangana High Court addressed the petitioner's complaint regarding the inaction of forest authorities in considering an application for an approach road and easementary rights. The court directed the petitioner to approach the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in the prescribed form. Upon filing, that authority was directed to dispose of the applicat

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to apply to Respondent No.2 in prescribed form; Respondent No.2 to examine and dispose of the application expeditiously.

Samala Santosh Reddy Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE^{SHAMEEM AKTHER}

¶6

WRIT PETITI ON NO: 5978OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Samala Santosh Reddy, S/o^{S. Narayana Reddy, Occ.Business,Rl/o. H'No.} 53, Villa Greens, Gandipet, Ranga^{Reddy District,Telangana}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Represented^{by its Principal Secretary,Forest} department, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶12

The Principal Chief Conservator,^{of Forestsand Head of the Forest Force} HoFF, Telingana Aranya Bhavan Saifabad^{Hyderabad 500 004}

¶13

The Conservator of Forests,^{Ranga ReddyCircle, AranyaBhavan Saifabad} Hyderabad 500 004

¶14

The District Forest Officer,^{Vikarabad Division, Vikarabad, Telangana}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 ol the^{Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filedtherewith,the High Courtmay be} pleased to pass an order, direction or a writ^{particularlyin the nature of writ of} Mandamus declaring the inaction of^{the Respondents by not considering the} application made by the^{Petitionersdated'l 1.01 .2022, seeking authorizationto} create an approach^road to^{access his property located at Survey No 227'} Girgetpalli Village, Vikarabad^{lvlandal, Vikarabad District as arbitrary,illegal,} unfair and consequently direct the^{Respondent No.2 to considerthe Petitioner's} application dated¹ 1.01.2022^{and grant easementaryrights to the petitionerto} access his^property.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to conduct site inspection as per application dated 11.01 .2022, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. OMAR A PASHA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, AGP FOR FORESTS

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.5978 OF 2022

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, wherein the following prayer is made:

¶27

"...to pass an order, direction or a Writ particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents by not considering the application made by the petitioners dated 11.01.2022 seeking authorization to create an approach road to access his property located at Survey No.227, Girgetpalli Village, Vikarabad Mandal, Vikarabad District, as arbitrary, illegal, unfair and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to consider the Petitioner's application dated 11.01.2022 and grant easementary rights to the petitioner to access his property and pass such order or orders... "

¶28

2 Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶29

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 11.01.2022 before the respondent No.4 with regard to the easementary rights in respect of the subject property. But so far no action has been taken on the said representation and sought a direction to respondent No.4 to dispose of the said representation.

¶30

4, On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests would submit that as per the Government regulations, respondent No.2 is the competent authority to grant

¶31

¶32

easementary rights in^{respect of the subjectproperty'} Therefore, the^{petitioner has to make an application before the} respondent No.2^{in the requisiteform, but he did not do so'}

¶33

Under these circumstances,^{the petitioner is directedto} make an application before^{the respondentNo.2 in the} prescribed form for^grant of easementary^{rights in respect of the} subject^{property.On filing such application, respondentNo.2 is} directed to examine^{and disposeof the same, expeditiously'}

¶34

With the above direction,^{the Writ Petitionis disposed of'}

¶35

Miscellaneous Petitions^{pending,if any, shall stand closed.}

¶36

No costs.

¶37

SD/.K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To,

//TRUE COPY//

SEAe N OFFICER

'1 . The Principal Secretary, Forest department, State of Telangana, Hyderabad, Telangana. 2. The Principal chief consewator, of Forests and Head of the Forest Force ^^{!.ot- l} I etangana Aranya Bhavan Saifabad Hyderabad 500 004 3. rhe conservator of Forests, Ranga Reddy ciicle, Aranya Bhavan saifabad Hyderabad 500 004

¶43

4 The D^istrict Forest Officer, Vika.rabad Division, Vikarabad, Telangana One CC to SRl. OMAR A PASHA Advocite rbpiiei-' 6 Iyo^{CCs to GP FOR FORESTS,fiigh} Court'for tne'State of Tetangana tourl

¶44

Two CD Cooies8. One Spare bopy. GB

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810312022

..
1 i:.9 S l^.,,
a
(F
Ji),J 0 3 JlJil 2[22
+

ORDER

WP.No.5978 of 2022

DISPOSING OF THE WP

WITHOUT COSTS.

Samala Santosh Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samala Santosh Reddy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Taduka Suman Vs Alia Dhanunjaya

Sayan Chakravarthy Vs The State of Telangana

Thakur Seethal Singh Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Mysa Durga Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

The Fisherman Co- Operative Society Limited Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Damgatla Lakshmanna , Golla Lakshmanna Vs The State of Telangana