Telangana High Court
WP/38661/2013 of Pujari Upendra Vs The State of A.P. on 30 December 2013
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.38661 of 2013 Date:30.12.2013 Between: Pujari Upendra, S/o Pullaiah ..... Petitioner And: The Govt of AP, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare and Tribal Welfare Department, Hyderabad and four others. .....Respondents Counsel for the
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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.38661 of 2013
Date:30.12.2013
Between: Pujari Upendra, S/o Pullaiah
..... Petitioner
And:
The Govt of AP, reptd by its Principal Secretary, SocialWelfare and Tribal Welfare Department, Hyderabad andfour others.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Palivela SatyarajababuCounsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP for Social Welfare Counsel for Respondent No.5: Sri P.Raghavender Reddy Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat The Court made the following:ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance thatrespondent No.4 is trying to dispossess the petitionerfrom the land admeasuring Ac.0.24 guntas in SurveyNo.138/1492/A of Manuguru Mouja Shivaru (Sai Nagar,Ashok Nagar, within the limits of Samithisingaram GramPanchayat), Khammam District.
At the hearing, Sri Palivela Satyarajababu, thelearned counsel for the petitioner, has conceded that hisclient has not filed any material in support of hisapprehension that respondent No.4 is proposing todispossess him from the land in question.
Ordinarily, if a person apprehends dispossession by any functionary of the State, he is expected to firstdemand such functionary to refrain from doing so. Exceptthe ipsi-dixit of the petitioner that respondent No.4 is likelyto dispossess him from the land in question, no materialis filed by him in support thereof. The petitioner failed toassign any reason for not approaching respondent No.4with a written notice to refrain from causing suchinterference.
The Writ Petition, which is filed without following theabove-mentioned procedure, is not entertainable and thesame is, accordingly, dismissed, without expressing anyopinion on the petitioner’s grievance. If respondent No.4continues to interfere with the petitioner’s possession ofthe above-mentioned land, the latter is permitted to causea legal notice issued to respondent No.4 and if he doesnot get the relief even thereafter, the petitioner can availappropriate remedy.
Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner asabove, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition,W.P.M.P.No.48053 of 2013 filed by the petitioner forinterim relief is dismissed as infructuous.
____________________________
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNAREDDY30[th]December, 2013DR