Telangana High Court
WP/29101/2009 of Jyothi Maheswara Rao, Vs Vijayawada Guntur Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban Development on 31 December 2009
MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.29101 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the resident of Sivasankara Nagar, Vanukuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. The village is said to be within the area of operation of the 1st respondent-Authority. 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.
Conclusion
ORDER:
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYWrit Petition No.29101 of 2009
The petitioner claims to be the resident of Sivasankara Nagar,Vanukuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. The village issaid to be within the area of operation of the 1[st] respondent-Authority. The petitioner states that respondents 3 and 4 commencedconstruction in the village, without any sanctioned plan from the GramPanchayat i.e. the 2[nd] respondent, and by encroaching into public lane. A representationwas made on 11.12.2009 to the respondents, and his grievance is that,no action has been taken thereon.
Heard the learned counsel.
This Court finds it difficult to entertain the writ petition. Thereason is that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy ofapproaching the District Panchayat Officer, Krishna. In case therepresentation made by him to the 2[nd] respondent is not acted upon,even now, he can take such a step.
Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to thepetitioner to file a representation before the District Panchayat Officer,Krishna. As and when such a representation is made, the DistrictPanchayat Officer shall call for necessary information and passappropriate orders. In the meanwhile, the 2[nd] respondent shall alsoensure that no construction is made without sanctioned plan andcontrary to the approved lay out, if any. Any action that may warrantdemolition etc., can be taken, only after notices are issued to respondents 3 and 4.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Dt.31-12-2009.GJ
_____________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.