Telangana High Court
WP/17476/1997 of Damisetti Nageswara Rao Vs The Secretary on 28 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.17476 OF 1997 Date: 28-12-2006 Between: 1. Damisetti Nageswara Rao, S/o Damisetti Ramaiah, aged 57 years, R/o S.No.810/1A,19-34-1, Attili (v) , and mandal, W.G. District and another. … Petitioners. And 1. The Secretary, Panchayat Raj
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO.17476 OF 1997
Date: 28-12-2006
Between:
1. Damisetti Nageswara Rao,
S/o Damisetti Ramaiah, aged 57 years,
R/o S.No.810/1A,19-34-1, Attili (v) ,
and mandal, W.G. District and another.
… Petitioners.
And
1.The Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 4 others. Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 4 others.
… Respondents.
* * *
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:
W.V.M.P.No.815 of 2006 is filed by respondents 3 to 5 inW.P.No.17476 of 1997 to vacate the interim order dated 31.7.1997in W.P.M.P.No.21186 of 1997. This court issued Rule Nisi on31.7.1997 and granted interim stay as prayed for.
2. The writ petition is filed for a writ or order or directionespecially one in the nature of Mandamus directing therespondents not to obstruct Pachi Pulusu Vari Veedhi laneextending to the open area before the Muslim burial ground byconstructing any structures on the said lane; and to declare theaction of the respondents in trying to obstruct the Pachi Pulusu Vari Veedhi, as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to Articles 19 and 21of the Constitution of India and pass such other suitable orders.
3. Several factual details are narrated in paragraphs 3 to 12 ofthe affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. On a carefulreading of the facts, which had been averred in the writ petition, itis clear that these are all factual controversies.
4. In the counter-affidavit filed, several averments made in thewrit petition had been specifically denied. It is stated that in factthe Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Attili had applied foralienation of the land in survey No.810/1A of Attili village forconstruction of Mandal Parishad Development Officer’s building,which is meant for public purpose. Certain facts relating to who isfair price shop dealer and other facts also had been narrated andspecific stand is taken that the oil mill by name Sri Mahendra andMahendra Oil and Flour Mill in door No.19-34-1 is not functioningat present and it is a defunct mill. Further specific stand is takenthat Pachipulusu Vari Veedhi is not a 25 feet wide street and it isonly 22 feet wide street. The said veedhi is not under regular useby the public or for vehicular traffic and this lane is not being used as way. The festival of Goddesses Venkamma andMahankalamma is used to be performed for three or four daysnear the temple and the festival of these Goddesses are not beingperformed in the said site and the old well adjacent to theVenkamma and Mahankalamma Pillar is not in usage at all and itwas filled with waste and garbage by the Gram Panchayat, Attili. This site is totally village site and the petitioners have no right over the said site. It is also further stated that the defunct oil milland Muslim burial ground are located towards northern side of thesaid site in R.S.No.810/1A and the site previously proposed forconstruction of Mandal Parishad Development Officer’s building istotally separate. The Muslims can use the street for the purposeof taking the dead bodies to the burial ground as and whennecessity arises. The site previously proposed for construction ofMandal Parishad Development Officer’s building is not at allobstructing the interest of the petitioners. They are having theirregular way and there is no proposal of construction of MandalParishad Development Officer’s building now in the said site asthe Mandal Parishad Development Officer’s building had beenconstructed recently in another site i.e., in the weekly market sitein R.S.No.779 of Attili village. Certain other factual details hadbeen narrated in paragraphs 7 to 12 of the counter-affidavit.
5. In the light of the specific stand taken in the counter-affidavitthat the respondents are not causing any obstruction, whatsoever,to the regular way and further in the light of the specific standtaken that the Mandal Parishad Development Officer’s building hadbeen constructed elsewhere, the respective averments are herebyrecorded and in the light of the same, the writ petition is disposedof accordingly, inasmuch as no further orders need be passed inview of the specific stand taken in the counter-affidavit byrespondents 3 to 5. Inasmuch as several factual controversiesare involved, the writ petitioners also are at liberty to agitate theirrights, if any, by invoking appropriate remedy, if the petitioners areso advised.
6. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Date: December 28, 2006.
__________________
(P.S.NARAYANA, J.)
BSB