Marella Sammi Reddy v. The State Of Telangana,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.6677 of 2018 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology. The alleged inaction on the part of the second respondent in taking action on the representation, dated 29.01.2018, submitted by the petitioner herein, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

Counter-affidavit, deposed by the Assistant Director, Mines & Geology, Karimnagar-third respondent, is filed, which, at paragraph No.2, reads as under:

"In reply to the averments made in paragraph 5 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the petitioner submitted a representation to the District Collector, Karimnagar (herein respondent No.2) in the Prajavani Programme on 29.01.2018. The said representation was registered in online prajavani portal of District Collector vide No.KA026/E/2018/00001, dated 29.01.2018 and the same was forwarded to the respondent No.3 for further action in the matter. In the said representation of the petitioner stated that the petitioner No.7 has destroyed the boundary pillars erected by the Deputy Inspector of Revenue Divisional Office on 16.05.2015 and also stated that while quarrying due to dust pollution his crops were damaged and also causing health problems and requested to take necessary action. It is submitted that as per records of the respondent No.7, the Grampanchayat passed a resolution on 25.06.2016 stating that the villagers/farmers have agreed to take pathway from the patta land from Sy.No.247/1 of respondent No.7. The Tahsildar, V-saidapur Mandal issued proceeding vide No.B/738/2014, dated

04.10.2017 that the respondent No.7 has agreed to give path way over an extent of acres 0.12 guntas in Sy.No.247/A of Ammanagurthy village in the Form-C (Form of Razinama or Relinquishment) for use to farmers and general public and the same has been taken into government possession and handed over to the Grampanchayat for using it as pathway in place of naksha bata, the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter No.2364/Prajavani/2015, dated 23.02.2018.

Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent not taken any action on the representation of the petitioner dated 29.01.2018 is incorrect and hence, the same is denied".

The averments extracted above clearly disclose that the respondents have taken appropriate action and communicated the same vide letter, dated 22.03.2018. In view of the same, nothing survives in the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI,J 11th June, 2018 Tsy