Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sangu Rajasekhar Reddy, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 21 January, 2022
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.26862 OF 2016
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking the following relief:-
"....to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring inaction on the
part of respondents on the petitioner's representation
dt.04.03.2016 submitted to re-convey the unutilized lands
i.e., Ac.0.12 cents, Ac.0.49 cents, Ac.0.78 cents, Ac.0.67
cents, Ac.0.84 cents and further Ac.0.54 cents respectively
covered by Survey Nos.239/3, 239/4, 239/5, 239/6,
239/7, 239/8 and Ac.3.50 cents and Ac.3.46 cents in
Survey Nos.261/1, 261/2A in total Ac.10.40 cents which
were acquired from the petitioner for the purpose of
providing house sites to the weaker sections people in the
Taticherla Revenue Village of Komurolu Mandal of Prakasam
District and remained unutilized as illegal, irregular,
irrational, violative of provisions The Land Acquisition Act,
1894 and The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 and offends articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India
and consequently direct the respondents to decide the
petitioner's said representation in accordance with law and
pass such other order or orders."
Though the petitioner made several allegations against the
respondents, during hearing, Mrs.Bonthu Rajani, learned counsel for
the petitioner limited his request to dispose of the representation
dated 04.03.2016 made by the petitioner, without touching the
merits of the case.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for
respondents readily agreed to dispose of the representation dated
04.03.2016 submitted by the petitioner, if any, pending with the
respondent-authorities.
4. Recording the submissions of the learned Government Pleader
for Revenue, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the
allegations made in the petition. This Court is conscious that no
such direction be issued, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court
in "The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh1", wherein the Apex
Court held that such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of
cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do not
serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner
himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the
representation dated 04.03.2016 submitted by the petitioner, I find
no other alternative, except to issue such direction.
5. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the
respondents to dispose of the representation dated 04.03.2016
submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate order in
accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order, if it is pending. No costs.
As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall
also stand closed.
_________________________________________
JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date: 21.01.2022
PKR
2019 (8) SCALE 544
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.26862 OF 2016
Date:21.01.2022
PKR
