Telangana High Court
WP/7496/2005 of T. Prathap Reddy, Vs The mandal Revenue Officer, on 26 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.7496 OF 2005 Dated: 26-12-2005 Between T. Prathap Reddy, S/o. T. Balakrishna Reddy, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. D.No.9/118, Vanniyar Block, Chittoor and others. …PETITIONERS AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pakala Mandal, Chittoor District and
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH
WRIT PETITION No.7496 OF 2005
Dated: 26-12-2005
Between
T. Prathap Reddy, S/o. T. Balakrishna
Reddy, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. D.No.9/118, Vanniyar Block, Chittoor and others.
…PETITIONERS
AND
The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pakala
Mandal, Chittoor District and others.
…RESPONDENTS
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:
Petitioners claim to be owners of the land in an extent of Ac.16.10 ¼ cents situate inS.Nos.52, 53, 55, 57, 58, 925 of Gandaki Village of Pakala Mandal, Chittoor District andthey have raised a Mango Thope. Admittedly the said land has been acquired for thepurpose of erecting a tank and compensation has been paid.
Though compensation has been the authorities have not taken physical possession of theproperty and the petitioners are enjoying the usufruct of the said Thope. However, therespondents visited the land on 02.04.2005 and directed the petitioners not to harvest theusufruct of the Thope since the same vests in the Government. The petitioners cannot haveany grievance of the same. The only course open to the petitioners is to question theproceedings and also if the proportionate compensation has not been paid. When theproceedings have become final the petitioners cannot have any objection for the proceedings in directing them not to harvest the usufruct.
However, when the matter was taken up for admission on 16.12.2005 there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners.
Therefore, the matter was directed to be posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’ on 26.12.2005. Even today, neither the petitioners appear nor there is anyrepresentation on their behalf.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution.
December 26, 2005
______________
V. ESWARAIAH, J