Telangana High Court
WP/28211/2008 of Midathana Raju Vs The Vice Chairman on 26 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.28211 of 2008 Between: Midathana Raju S/o. Late Marian, Spring Road
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
WRIT PETITION NO.28211 of 2008
Between:
Midathana Raju S/o. Late Marian, Spring Road Visakhapatnam.
AND
...PETITIONER
1 The Vice Chairman Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA), Sirpuram Junction Visakhapatnam.
2 The Chief Planning Officer Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA), Siripuram Junction Visakhapatnam.
3 The Executive Officer Kothavalasa Gram Panchayat Kothavalasa Vizianagaram. Vizianagaram.
4 M.Sudha D/o. Raju Hindu, 26-8-20 Rajaramohan Roy Road Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam.
5 V.Jayaprakashbabu S/o. Vasantha Rao, D.No.1-20-1 VasanthaVihar Vihar Vizianagaram.
6 V.Srinivasa Babu S/o.Jayaprakashbabu Hindu, D.No.1-211
Vasantha
Vihar Vizianagaram.
7 V.Vasantha Babu S/o.Jayaprakashbabu Hindu, D.No.1-211
Vasantha
Vihar Vizianagaram.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying thatin the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courtwill be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction moreparticularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the1st respondent disposing of the representation sent by the petitioner herein No.1.12-2008 under registered post with acknowledgment duewhich was received by the 1st respondent on 4-12-20008 as unjust andillegal and direct the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of theabove representation sent by the petitioner in accordance with law asexpeditiously as possible.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.S.R.SUBRAHMANYAM
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FORMPL. CORP. VSP)
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
WRIT PETITION NO.28211 of 2008
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
According to the petitioner, he purchased an extent of Acs.7.58 ½cents in Survey Nos.197/1 and 197/2-A of Kothavalasa Village,Vizianagaram District. Colluding with her husband, the petitioner’sdaughter brought a forged will dated 26.03.1992, as if the said landwas gifted to her by her mother during her life time and on the basis ofthe said will, she executed registered sale deeds in favour ofrespondents 5
to 7. In the light of the said sale transaction, respondents 5 to 7 tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner. Hence, thepetitioner was constrained to file O.S.No.20 of 2008 on the file of theAdditional District Judge, Vizianagaram, for declaration of title and alsofor permanent injunction against his daughter. Without any authority,whatsoever, because of the alleged sale transaction that took placebetween them, the fourth respondent started making constructions inthe said plot. Immediately, the petitioner approached respondents 1and 2 and gave a representation on 01.12.2008 stating that the saidconstruction is without any title and the same is contrary toG.O.Ms.No.408 M.A. Municipal Administration and Urban Development(M) Department dated 08.08.1991. However, as no action has beeninitiated by the official respondents, particularly, respondents 1 and 2,the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present Writ Petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. V.PreethiReddy, learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent.
Having considered the submissions, this Court is of the view thatit is not necessary for this Court to go into various factual aspectsraised in this Writ Petition and is of the view that this Writ Petition canbe disposed of at the stage of admission by dispensing with the usualnotice to the unofficial respondents.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the
Conclusion
first respondent to consider the representation given by the petitionerdated 01.12.2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is needless to observe that before considering the said representationand passing any orders, he may put respondents 4 to 7 on notice, sothat they can ventilate their grievances. It is only after hearing thepetitioner and respondents 4 to 7, the first respondent shall passappropriate orders. The said exercise shall be completed within aperiod of four {4} weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
_________________________
(GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J)
26[th] December 2008RRB