Kovvuri Vamsee Krishna Reddy v. Gram Panchayat Ravulapalem & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 16 Apr 2010
- Bench
- V V S RAO
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8466 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a resident of Ravulapalem. He is aggrieved by the various sanctions given by the Gram Panchayat for layouts. He alleges that the sanction of layout is without proper proceedings for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose and Gram Panchayat itself has no jurisdiction to grant layout without prior approval of Director of Town Planning. Though the writ petition is of general nature, proceedings of the Panchayat Secretary based on resolution No.32, dated 28.05.2007, is annexed, probably, for the reason that the petitioner is aggrieved by the same. This leads to an inference that the petitioner’s grievance is the denial of ingress and egress to the petitioner’s property in the layout sanctioned vide said resolution. If that be so, the remedy is to approach the Government under Section 246 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and seek redressal. In this writ petition the questions of fact, especially, when the parties who are likely to be adversely affected are not before the Court, cannot be gone into. Liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the Government and file resolution/resolutions of application for cancellation of Ravulapalem Gram Panchayat sanctioning layouts. The writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case is accordingly dismissed. _____________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
16.04.2010
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 — s. 246.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 16 Apr 2010. 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.