Telangana High Court
WP/26960/2007 of Nainala Bhavannarayana, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its on 31 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No :26960 of 2007 DATED:31-12-2007 BETWEEN: Nainala Bhavannarayana & 3 others. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Government of A.P., Rep., by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard learned
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
WRIT PETITION No :26960 of 2007
BETWEEN:
DATED:31-12-2007
Nainala Bhavannarayana & 3 others.
AND
..... PETITIONERS
The Government of A.P.,Rep., by its Secretary,Revenue Department,Secretariat,Hyderabad & 2 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:
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as wellas the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing forthe respondents.
2. Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus declaring theaction of the respondents in trying to take away the lands of thepetitioners, namely Ac.0.93 cents in Sy.No.431; Ac.0.87 centsin Sy.No.431/14 belonging to the 1[st] petitioner; Ac.0.65 cents inSy.No.431/IB; Ac.0.33 cents in Sy.No.431/6; Ac.1.00 inSy.No.431/8 belonging to the 2[nd] petitioner; Ac.1.12 cents inSy.No.431/5 and Ac.0.80 cents in Sy.No.431/7 belonging to the3[rd] petitioner; Ac.0.93 cents in Sy.No.31/13; Ac.1.05 cents in Sy.No.431/9, 11;and Ac.0.95 cents in Sy.No.431/7 of Chimakurthi village, asillegal, and arbitrary.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they have purchasedcertain extents of land in Sy.No.431 vide registered sale deeds,dated 2005-2006, situated at Endluru village, hamlet ofSanthanuthalapadu village and mandal, Prakasam District, andthe said land is sought to be used for the purpose of allottinghouse sites under ‘Indiramma Housing Scheme’. It is stated that the said land is not an assigned land or Government land, but itis their private land and therefore even if the said land isrequired for housing purpose they cannot use the same withoutfollowing due process of law by acquiring the land. Even if it isan assigned land, the authorities cannot dispossess thepetitioners without following due procedure prescribed under theprovisions of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers)Act,1977.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, withoutexpressing any opinion regarding the merits of the case, 3[rd]respondent is directed not to dispossess the petitioners withoutfollowing due process of law.
5. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. No order asto costs.
_________________
V.ESWARAIAH,J
31[st] December, 2007.Tsy