← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/6791/2014dismissed no costs

Seelam Nageswara Rao,Khammam Dist v. State Of Ap,Prl.Scy,Home,Hyd,And 6

2019-11-05P.Keshava Rao2 pages

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO WRIT PETITION No.6791 of 2014 ORDER:

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 2.

The prayer sought in the writ petition is as under:- "...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the Respondents No.2 and 3 in not taking any action on petitioner's complaint, dated.27.11.2012 lodged against the Respondent No.5 to 7 who abused the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and collected large scale of amounts by deceiving the illiterate poor tribals compensation amounts, taking advantage of the dismal legal literacy of the tribal population in the acquisition of land for the Indira Sagar Project, popularized as Polavaram Project, as per law as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, colorable exercise of power and violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3.

Learned Government appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 placed on record the written instructions, dated 02.04.2014, issued by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Bhadrachalam. 4.

From the perusal of the said written instructions, it is revealed that the office of the 2nd respondent did not receive the complaint, dated 27.11.2012, as alleged by the petitioner. It is also further mentioned that after verification of the records with the office of the

2nd respondent, it is revealed that no such complaint has been lodged with the 2nd respondent.

5.

In fact, from the perusal of the complaint, dated 27.11.2012, said to have been lodged with the 2nd respondent and filed as a material at page 13 of the writ petition, also does not have any endorsement to show that the said complaint is lodged with the 2nd respondent.

6.

In view of these facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. No costs.

___________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J 5th October 2019 mar