E.Srinivas Goud Medak Dist. v. The State Of Ts. Revenue Hyd. And 4 Otrs.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION No.8607 OF 2016 O R D E R :

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri G.Narender Reddy, Standing Counsel for respondent No.4.

2. Petitioner's grievance is that the 5th respondent is encroaching the village path way and even though the petitioner had submitted a representation dt.22.02.2016 to the 3rd respondent to stop the said encroachment, no action has been initiated by the respondents.

3. The Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 3 states that the petitioner should approach the 4th respondent Executive Authority with an appropriate application complaining about the encroachment by the 5th respondent.

4. Sri G.Narender Reddy, Standing Counsel for 4th respondent also submits that if the application is made to the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent will take action in accordance with law, after giving notice to 5th respondent.

5. In view of the said submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the 4th respondent complaining about

the encroachment by the 5th respondent, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if such application is made, the 4th respondent shall communicate his decision on the said representation after issuing notice to 5th respondent in accordance with law, within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of such application from the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

6. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.

_____________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J 16th March, 2016.

pab