Telangana High Court

WP/22304/2004 of Abdul Wahab Ansari, Vs The Govt of A.P., through Secretary, on 30 December 2005

SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.No. 22304 OF 2004 30th December, 2005 Between: 1. Abdul Wahab Anari and Others ..Petitioner A N D 1. The Govt. A.P. through Secretary Revenue Department, ecretariat, Hyderabad and Others. …Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

30th December, 2005

Between:

1. Abdul Wahab Anari and Others ..Petitioner A N D

1. The Govt. A.P. through Secretary Revenue Department, ecretariat, Hyderabad and Others.

…Respondents

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

W.P.No. 22304 OF 2004

O R D E R :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are six in number with aprayer to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ ofmandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in considering the applicationof the petitioners dated 29-3-2004 for regularization of schedule property bearing H.No. 1-8-1/B, admeasuring 480 square yards, situated at Bagh Lingampally underG.O.Ms.No. 515, Revenue ( Assignment-I) as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The petitioners claimed that they are in possession of the property and theysought for regularization of their possession under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.515,dated 19-4-2003.

3. Undisputedly, G.O.Ms.No. 515, dated 19-04-2003 is applicable to the Governmentlands and not to the lands owned by the A.P.Housing Board. The lands in questioncame to be acquired by the Housing Board in the year 1975. It is the contention ofthe petitioners that despite the land being acquired by the housing board theycontinued to be in possession of the property as on this day. A further contention hasbeen raised that A.P. Housing Board has assured them to provide alternativeaccommodation.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing forRespondents No. 1 to 4 and learned standing counsel appearing for the 5[th]respondent.

5. Undisputedly the land in question is acquired for the benefit of A.P. HousingBoard and it can be said without controversy that A.P. Housing Board is the owner ofthe property. The G.O. referred above does not relates to the properties owned bythe A.P. Housing Board. However, Housing Board has given assurance to thepetitioners to provide alternative accommodation. In such a situation, if thepetitioners want regularization of their possession, they have to make application tothe A.P. Housing Board and there upon, the Housing Board has to consider theirapplication, keeping in view of the rules in force.

6. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition givingliberty to the petitioners to make an application before the A.P. Housing Board-5[th]respondent for regularization of their possession or for providing alternativeaccommodation within one month from today and thereafter the Housing Board-5[th]respondent has to pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. No order asto costs.

______________________________

Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy

30[th] December, 2005

KM

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

30th December, 2005

Page 1 of 1

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead