E VENKATESWARULU GOUD vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

APHC010058532023 IN TH THURSDA TWO THE HONOURA W Between: 1.

E VENKATESWAR AGED ABOUT 57 VILLAGE, KURNOO 2.

LACCHAMMA, W/O R/O.

H.NO.

3-192, AND DISTRICT 3.

L.

MADDILETY R ABOUT 61 YEAR NANDANAPALLI VI 4.

B.

VIJAYA BHASK AGED ABOUT 56 JUPADU BUNGALO 1.

THE STATE OF SECRETARY, PAN VELAGAPUDI, GUN 2.

THE DISTRICT CO 3.

THE MANDAL PA RURAL MANDAL, K 4.

NANDANAPALLI G E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL RIT PETITION NO: 2883/2023 RULU GOUD, S/O.

E.

CHINNA SESH 7 YEARS, R/O/ H.NO.

1-42, NA OL MANDAL AND DISTRICT O.

M.

SUNDARA RAO, AGED ABOU , RUDRAVARAM VILLAGE, KURNO EDDY, S/O.

LATE MADDILETY R RS, R/O.

3-189-9, BHU ILLAGE, KURNOOL MANDAL AND D KAR REDDY, S/O.

VENKATA SU YEARS, R/O.

3-76, THATIPA OW, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...P AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY IT NCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, S NTUR DISTRICT LLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KU ARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICE KURNOOL DISTRICT GRAM PANCHAYAT, , REP.

BY ITS DESH [3332] R LAPATI HANNA GOUD, ANDANAPALLI UT 46 YEARS, OOL MANDAL REDDY, AGED UPAL NAGAR, DISTRICT UBBA REDDY, ADU VILLAGE, PETITIONER(S) TS PRINCIPAL SECRETARIAT, URNOOL ER, KURNOOL S PANCHAYAT SECRETARY , KURNOOL RURAL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in ear marking the small stretch of temple inam land situated along with Government cart track road admeasuring Ac.

0.68 cents in P.

Rudravaram Village, Kurnool Rural Mandal, Kurnool District even though there is a already big existing big dump yard situated in the outskirts of the P. of the P.

Rudravaram Village and absolutely there is no necessity to construct new dump yard, whereas only for ulterior reasons by way of colorable exercise of power as illegal, arbitrary and consequently forbear the respondents from ear marking/ constructing the dump yard in the aforesaid temple inam land and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 02.01.2023 and pass appropriate orders forthwith, pending disposal of the above Writ petition, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.K RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM PANCHAYAT 2.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ORDER: Declaring the action of the respondents in earmarking the small stretch of temple inam land situated along with Government cart track road to an extent of Ac.0.68 cents in P.Rudravaram Village, Kurnool Rural Mandal, Kurnool District, for the purpose of constructing a new dumping yard without any necessity, as illegal, arbitrary, present writ petition is filed.

2.

Heard Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Smt.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for the respondents.

3.

Learned Standing Counsel on counter contended that the construction of aforementioned center is in Sy.No.245 in an extent of 0.20 cents in Nandanapalli Gram Panchayat, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool Districtbut not in the subject land as alleged by the petitioners.

Further, the construction activity has already commenced and yet to be completed. completed.The averments made by the petitioners are not correct, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4.

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed to record the said submission and close the writ petition.

5.

Taking their submissions into consideration, as the respondents are not making constructions in the subject land, there remains nothing for adjudication and the writ petition is liable to be closed.

6.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed.There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 06th November, 2025 RKS