Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J
G ANGINENI THULASI NAIDU – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rights concerning property use (Para 2) |
| 2. public necessity arguments (Para 3) |
| 3. court's directive for motor removal (Para 4) |
| 4. entitlement of the petitioner re-established (Para 5) |
| 5. final ruling on petition (Para 6) |
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Respondents and perused the material placed on record.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent – Gram Panchayat herein erected submersible motor to the petitioner’s bore-well situated in Sy.No.30-1, Basireddypalli Village, Mallepalli Mandal for drawing the water to cater the drinking water needs of people of the village. At request of the Gam Panchayat as well as other elders of the village and due to public need, the petitioner agreed for erection of submersible motor to the petitioner’s bore-well to draw and cater the drinking water needs of the village people. After lapse of 4 years period the 5th respondent – Gram Panchayat drawing the water from somewhere else other than the petitioner’s bore-well, while so, but not removed the submersible motor fixed to the bore-well of the petitioner even though the petitioner requested for removal of the same. For
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
