Telangana High Court
WP/38918/2013 of Dubbakula Sathaiah (died) per LRs 2 to 5 Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.38918 OF 2013 Dated 31st December 2013 BETWEEN: 1. Dubbakula Sathaiah (died) per LRs.2 to 5 and nine others. …PETITIONERS AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat,
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO.38918 OF 2013
Dated 31stDecember 2013
BETWEEN:
1. Dubbakula Sathaiah (died) per LRs.2 to 5 and nine others.
…PETITIONERS
AND
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its PrincipalSecretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and sixothers.
…RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. Akkam Eswar for Mr. B.Chandrasen Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: Assistant GovernmentPleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7:
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO.38918 OF 2013
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:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order inCase No.F1/29/2010 dated 11.12.2013 of respondent No.2 wherebyhe has set aside the order of respondent No.3 granting OccupancyRights Certificate (ORC) to the petitioners in respect of landsadmeasuring Ac.0.14 gts and Ac.1.04 gts in Survey Nos.378 and379 respectively of Adibhatla Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the ORC grantedto the petitioners was set aside and the case was remanded torespondent No.3 for a de novo enquiry after issuing notices to all theparties interested in the property. The only ground on which thisorder has been questioned by the petitioners is that no noticewhatsoever was given to the petitioners before the said order waspassed. Respondent No.2, in his impugned order, has observedthat after issuing notices to both the parties, a paper publication wasmade on 20.07.2012 in Saakshi Telugu daily newspaper. Thepetitioners pleaded that as they are illiterates, they have noknowledge of the said publication.
In my opinion, the petitioners cannot plead ignorance of apaper publication, as there is a presumption of knowledge of paperpublications. In as much as respondent No.2 has balanced theinterests of both the parties by remanding the matter to respondentNo.2 for a de novo enquiry, I do not find any reason to entertain thisWrit Petition.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition,WP.MP.No.48364 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim reliefshall stand disposed of as infructuous.
_____________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
31[st] December 2013RRBRRB