Telangana High Court
WP/27926/2008 of Smt. Pendyala Nagamma Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, on 24 December 2008
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27926 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner filed instant writ petition challenging notice, dated 01.08.2007 (issued more than a year ago), of first respondent directing petitioner to show cause as to why the assignment of land admeasuring Acs.1.29 in
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOWRIT PETITION No.27926 of 2008
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 petitioner filed instant writ petition challenging notice, dated 01.08.2007(issued more than a year ago), of first respondent directing petitioner to showcause as to why the assignment of land admeasuring Acs.1.29 in survey No.62/6and Acs.0.10 in survey No.62/7, totalling Acs.2.39 (subject land, for brevity), whichwas allotted under Cooperative Joint Farming Society Scheme (CJFSS), shouldnot be cancelled.
The petitioner is statedly an agricultural coolie. She was assigned subjectland, which is her livelihood. Allegedly for the present crop year, she raisedsunflower. First respondent issued notice on 01.08.2007 alleging that petitioner didnot cultivate the land and therefore, it is decided to cancel the allotment. She wasasked to submit explanation. The petitioner allegedly submitted explanation andthe enquiry is pending before first respondent. Nonetheless, the Tahsildar,Udayagiri, issued notice, dated 29.09.2008, directing petitioner not to enter thesubject land in survey No.62/6 admeasuring Acs.1.29 on the ground that petitionerfailed to produce any document evidencing her right over the land belonging toCJFSS. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.
This Court heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned AssistantGovernment Pleader for Revenue (General-Andhra). Tahsildar, Udayagiri, is not aparty respondent to writ petition. In the notice, dated 29.09.2008, he chose to referto show cause notice issued by Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali but noreference to explanation, which is statedly submitted by petitioner. Secondly, if thepetitioner is in possession and allegedly raised crops, merely because she did notsubmit documents as advised in the show cause notice, dated 01.08.2007,Tahsildar may not prohibit petitioner from cultivating or entering the land especiallywhen there is sunflower crop on the land. Therefore, petitioner is given liberty toapproach the Revenue Divisional Officer for necessary redressal and produceevidence in support of her case that she and her family are depending on the landfor livelihood and that they are cultivating the land. Till an enquiry is completed byRevenue Divisional Officer after considering the evidence that may be producedby petitioner, no coercive steps shall be taken by Tahsildar nor the petitioner canbe prevented from entering the land.
The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
_______________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)