Telangana High Court
WA/2424/2005 of Pothula Narasimhulu, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer, on 27 December 2005
SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 2424 of 2005 & WRIT PETITION NO. 13304 OF 2005 Between: 1 Pothula Narasimhulu, S/o.Narasiah, R/o.Sindhanthipuram, Khajipet Mandal,Kadapa district and another. APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS AND The Mandal
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.
Conclusion
HONOURABLE SRI G.S. SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDYWRIT APPEAL NO : 2424 of 2005&WRIT PETITION NO. 13304 OF 2005Between:1 Pothula Narasimhulu, S/o.Narasiah, R/o.Sindhanthipuram, Khajipet Mandal,Kadapa district and another.APPELLANTS/PETITIONERSAND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mydukur Mandal,Kadapa district......RESPONDENT::JUDGMENT::Counsel for the Appellants: SMT.V.DYUMANICounsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE
Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ
This is an appeal for setting aside order dated 27.6.2005 by which the learnedSingle Judge dismissed Writ Petition No. 13304 of 2005 filed by the appellantagainst their threatened dispossession from land measuring Ac. 1.25 comprised inSurvey No. 453/2 and Ac.1.00 comprised in Survey No. 453/1 of NandalampetVillage, Khajipet Mandal of Kadapa District on the ground that the writ petitionershave not produced any evidence to show their title over the property in question.
When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 13.12.2005, learned counsel for theappellants made a request for adjournment to enable her clients to bring on recordadditional documents, which did not form part of the writ petition. Her request wasaccepted and the case was adjourned for today.
By taking advantage of the liberty given by the Court, the appellants have filed largenumber of documents to show that they had purchased the disputed land from theassignees. The learned Government Pleader has also produced xerox copy of orderdated 5.8.2003 passed by Mandal Revenue Officer, Mydukur by which the landbearing Survey No. 453/3 was resumed to the Government for eventual assignmentto the landless poor for agricultural purpose. She also produced xerox copy of orderdated 15.10.2004 passed by the same Mandal Revenue Officer cancelling the ‘D’Form patta issued in the name of Smt. Idagottu Balamma, W/o. Seshanna ofLakshmipalli.
Copies of the documents produced by the learned Government pleader havebeen supplied to the learned counsel for the appellants. She now requests that herclient may be permitted to withdraw this appeal as also the writ petition with liberty tofile a fresh petition for challenging orders dated 5.8.2003 and 15.10.2004 passed byMandal Revenue Officer, Mydukur and also reiterate the prayers made in WritPetition No.13304 of 2005. She also made a request that the Court may direct theparties to maintain status quo for a period of four weeks within which her clients mayfile fresh petition.
Learned Government Pleader says that the land, which was resumed by the Mandal Revenue Officer in 2003, has already been assigned to third parties and they areenjoying the actual possession.
By taking into consideration the statement of learned counsel for the parties,we accept the prayer made by the counsel for the appellants and grant leave to herclients to withdraw the appeal as also the writ petition with liberty to challengeorders dated 5.8.2003 and 15.10.2004 passed by Mandal Revenue Officer, Mydukurbefore appropriate forum. However, the request made by the learned counsel fordirecting the parties to maintain status-quo is rejected.
G.S. SINGHVI, CJ
Date: 27[th] December, 2005
Pnb/vtv
R. SUBHASH REDDY,J