Pillikathupula Prasad v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its Principal Secretary,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE S.V.BHATT W RI T PETI TI ON No.3 9 9 6 5 of 2 0 1 6 ORDER:

Heard Mr. G.V.S. Mehar Kumar for petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents.

2.

Petitioner complains against demolition of structures covered by D.No.764 of Deepaladinnepalem village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District for road widening as illegal and unconstitutional. 3.

Petitioner claims exclusive possession and proprietary right to the land covered by D.No.764. On 05.08.2016, complaining against the mode and manner of demolition and trying to dispossess the petitioner, a representation is made to second respondent. 4.

Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is satisfied if the second respondent is directed to examine the representation dated 05.08.2016 and communicate a decision on the said representation. 5.

As a grievance is brought to the notice of second respondent and inaction is complained, I am satisfied the writ petition is disposed of by this order:

a) The second respondent is directed to examine the representation dated 05.08.2016, take a decision and communicate to petitioner within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

b) Petitioner, if aggrieved by such communication, is given liberty to work out the remedies before the competent Court.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ S. V. BHATT, J December 1, 2016 DSK