Arepalli Subbarao v. The District Collector, Krishna & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
instead of keeping the matter pending, the Writ Petition is disposed of observing that
Provisions considered
Judgment
Alleging that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have encroached the road margins in Yenamalakuduru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, the petitioner made a representation to the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, in vain. The petitioner again sent another representation on 13.02.2006 without any avail. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition complaining the inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Though the matter was adjourned once on 02.05.2006, no instructions are obtained by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General). Therefore,
Operative part
instead of keeping the matter pending, the Writ Petition is disposed of observing that respondent Nos.1 and 2 may immediately look into the complaints/representations given by the petitioner and take appropriate action against the encroachers of road margins in Yenamalakuduru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, in accordance with law. It shall also be open to the District Collector to issue necessary directions to the Gram Panchayat, Yenamalakuduru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, to proceed in accordance with Section 98 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. This action shall be initiated within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ____________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
05.06.2006 Note: Issue C.C in three days. B/o.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: instead of keeping the matter pending, the Writ Petition is disposed of observing that
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 — s. 98.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 05 Jun 2006. The bench was V V S RAO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.