Telangana High Court
WP/27788/2005 of K.Atchiyyamma Vs The mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) on 28 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.27788 OF 2005 DATED:28.12.2005 Between: K. Atchiyyamma …Petitioner And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) Visakhapatnam District and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.27788 OF
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.27788 OF 2005
DATED:28.12.2005
Between:
K. Atchiyyamma
And
The Mandal Revenue Officer,
Visakhapatnam (Rural)
Visakhapatnam District and another
…Petitioner
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
WRIT PETITION NO.27788 OF 2005
The petitioner is a resident of Akkayyapalem, in Visakhapatnam. She allegedlypurchased an extent of 600 Sq.yards in S.No.335/5 of Madhurawada Village, fromSmt. M.Ranganayakamma under registered sale deed dt.14.8.1986. She allegesthat her vendor got a layout approved by Madhurawada Gram Panchayat in respectof the land admeasuring Acs.4.60 in S.No.335/5 and the Mandal Revenue Officeralso issued a certificate to that effect. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam(Rural) issued a notice dt.9.12.2005 under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands(Prohibition of Transfers) Rules, 1977 directing the petitioner to show cause as towhy the land in her possession should not be resumed by summarily evicting her.The petitioner also submitted explanation and the matter is pending before the Mandal Revenue Officer. In the meanwhile, it is alleged that on 3.12.2005 theMandal Revenue Officer proclaimed in the locality that the land in possession of thepetitioner is assigned land and the petitioner would be forcibly evicted. Therefore,present Writ Petition is filed.
The Mandal Revenue Officer has initiated action by issuing show cause noticedt.9.12.2005 the petitioner statedly submitted explanation. Therefore, it is notpossible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that theMandal Revenue Officer is likely to evict the petitioner forcibly. Secondly, it is urgedthat being a landless poor person petitioner is entitled for regularization of land inher occupation as per the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1601,dt.29.8.2005 and therefore she cannot be evicted. Nothing prevents the petitioner toraise this ground before the Mandal Revenue Officer and seek appropriate ordersfrom the competent authority. Merely because the Government Orders permitregularization of illegal occupation, the same does not give rise to any cause ofaction to the petitioner to file present Writ Petition, especially when the matter is atthe stage of show cause notice. After considering the explanation, the MandalRevenue Officer shall pass appropriate orders in the matter.
The Writ Petition with the above observations is accordingly dismissed.
_______________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
28.12.2005
bnr