M. Chinnaseela Reddy v. The District Collector, Kurnool,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Between:

M. Chinnaseela Reddy .. Petitioner and The District Collector, Kurnool and another .. Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 31.07.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment?

ORDER:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. With the consent of both the parties, the main writ petition is heard and disposed of at the admission stage itself.

The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not taking any action on the representation dated 04.01.2011 made by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that as the farmers lost their crop and sustained huge loss due to heavy rains in the year 2010, the Government granted funds, for the purpose of disbursement to the flood affected farmers, as compensation. It is stated that the Government entrusted the work to the officials of the Revenue Department by directing them to identify the affected farmers and disburse the amount. However, the V.R.O. is alleged to have prepared a list of 193 beneficiaries showing benami names with wrong survey numbers and fixed compensation to them on the ground that they raised redgram crop, with a view to swallow the funds. It is stated that no farmer raised redgram crop in the village and all the farmers have only raised paddy and jowar crops. On 04.01.2011 the petitioner is said to have made a representation to the 1st respondent seeking an enquiry into the matter who, in turn, is said

to have directed the 2nd respondent to conduct a Gramasabha into the matter and take necessary action.

Inspite of the same, the 2nd respondent is proceeding to disburse the amount as per the list prepared by him. Questioning the said action of the 2nd respondent, the present writ petition is filed.

Since the request of the petitioner is only with regard to disposal of his representation dated 04.01.2011 which was forwarded to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent is directed to dispose of the same, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall also stand closed.

__________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 31st July, 2015 cbs

31st July, 2015 cbs