Telangana High Court
WP/26444/2006 of Togata Madhavi Vs Mandal Revenue Officer,Jupaadu Bunglow Mandal on 22 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26444 of 2006 Dated:22.12.2006 BETWEEN: Togata Madhavai and others. … Petitioner and Mandal Revenue Officer and others. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26444 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioners herein
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.26444 of 2006
Dated:22.12.2006
BETWEEN:
Togata Madhavai and others.
… Petitioner
and
Mandal Revenue Officer and others.
… Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.26444 of 2006
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:
The petitioners herein filed the present Writ Petition declaring theaction of the respondents in resorting to evict them from Plot Nos.172, 76,141, 96 and 181 situated in Survey No.193/A2 of Tarigoppula Village ofJupaadu Bunglow Mandal in Kurnool District, without due process of law,as illegal and arbitrary.
It is their case that the Mandal Revenue Officer granted house sitepattas in November 2003, that they could not construct pucca houses, butthey raised small huts. They allege that due to change in the political setup, steps are being taken to evict them.
After getting instructions, the learned Assistant GovernmentPleader for Revenue (Assignment) submits that the land was assigned tothe petitioners in 2003. However, the layout of the land was changed in2006. Thereafter, petitioners 2 to 5 were allotted the same house sites,but petitioner No.1, who was earlier allotted Plot No.172, is now allottedPlot No.59. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also submits thatthe petitioners are not in possession of the land, and there are no stepsbeing taken by the Mandal Revenue Officer for cancellation ofassignment.
In view of the submission made by the learned AssistantGovernment Pleader, this Court is of considered opinion that the WritPetition can be disposed of observing that unless and until due processof law is followed, the assignment made in favour of the petitionerscannot be cancelled, and if the petitioners are in possession, they cannot be dispossessed by use of force without due process of law.
The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is accordinglydisposed of. No costs.
22.12.2006vs
____________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)