Telangana High Court
WP/19779/2004 of Inuganti Satya Sreeranga Srinivas, Vs The Government of A.P. on 24 December 2007
G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.19779 of 2004 Dated this the 24th day of December, 2007 Between: Inuganti Satya Sreeranga Srinvivas and 8 others … Petitioners AND The Govt. of A.P., rep.by its Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and 4 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.
Conclusion
aHON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU
W.P.No.19779 of 2004
Dated this the 24[th] day of December, 2007
Between:
Inuganti Satya Sreeranga Srinvivasand 8 others … Petitioners
AND
The Govt. of A.P., rep.by its Secretary,Endowments Department, Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad, and 4 others … Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU
W.P.No.19779 of 2004
ORDER:
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking todeclare that the orders passed by the second respondent-RegionalJoint Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada, in appeal No.141 of2004 and batch, dated 21.09.2004 that the lands taken on lease by thepetitioners are wet lands and the petitioners are not landless poorpersons are illegal and arbitrary.
2) The petitioners are contending that they are landless poorpersons, but the contents of the writ petition clearly indicates that eachpetitioner is in possession of more than 2 ½ acres of land and moreand the land is classified as wet land in the revenue records. Theyobtained a certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer to the effect thatthough the lands are classified as wet lands in the village accounts,due to lack of continuous supply of water from the Pampa ReservoirProject for the last three years due to frequent failure of rains dry cropsare being raised in the above lands. The water will not be available forone year out of every three years. But, the Mandal Revenue Officer didnot mention as to what were the crops that were raised during that yearin which the reservoir water is not available. The petitioners also didnot mention as to what were the crops raised by them though it iscontended that they were dry lands.
3) After going through the averments made in the writ petition,and the orders passed by the second respondent, I am convinced thatthe orders passed by the second respondent are supported bysufficient reasons. Therefore, he rightly came to the conclusion thatthe petitioners are not landless poor persons as defined under Section82 (2) of the Endowments Act. I do not find any merits in the writpetition and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief through this writpetition.
4) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
_________________
Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J
Date: 24-12-2007
Isn