Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: PEDDAPALLY in Maddela Anil Kumar vs The Peddapally Municipality And 3 ... on 19 August, 2020Matching Fragments
(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan) The appellant has challenged the legality of order, dated 14.07.2020, passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 10236 of 2020, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant, writ petitioner, claims that he is one of the successors of one Mr. Maddela Paul, S/o. Nambaiah, who was the original pattader, owner and possessor of land falling within Sy.No. 140 of Rangampally Village, Peddapally Mandal and District, admeasuring Ac.8.37 guntas. According to the appellant, there was an oral partition amongst the family members. But the actual partition was never effected through court process. Furthermore, according to the appellant, the said land was kept partly vacant, while other parts were being cultivated. Therefore, the land continues to be agricultural land. However, in March/April, 2019, certain anti- social elements started interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellant. These persons appeared to be from Godavarikhani and Karimnagar areas. Therefore, the appellant submitted a complaint before the Commissioner, Peddapally Municipality, and the Secretary of the Rangampally Gram Panchayat for taking action against those anti-social elements, and to stop the construction being raised by them. Moreover, according to the appellant, since neither the Commissioner, nor the Secretary took any action against the anti-social elements, he filed an application under Right to Information Act in order to find out as to what actions are being taken against the encroachers. However, even the RTI application has never been replied to. Thus, having no other option, the appellant filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. However, by the impugned order, dated 14.07.2020, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition inter alia on the ground that the representation submitted by the appellant is rather vague in its content. Hence, this writ appeal before this Court.