Telangana High Court
WP/23102/2006 of Kashinathrao, Vs The District Collector, on 29 December 2006
V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.23102 of 2006 Dated:29.12.2006 Between: Kashinathrao. …Petitioner and The District Collector and others. …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.23102 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner is statedly the owner of land admeasuring
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.23102 of 2006
Dated:29.12.2006
Between:Kashinathrao.
and
…Petitioner
The District Collector and others.
…Respondent
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
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:
WRIT PETITION No.23102 of 2006
The petitioner is statedly the owner of land admeasuring Ac.0.35guntas in Survey No.39/1-AA and land admeasuring Acs.2.16 guntasin Survey No.39/2-E situated at Anthargaon Village of Kalher Mandalin Medak District. He alleges that prior to 1992 an extent of landadmeasuring Acs.5.11 guntas in Survey No.39 was acquired forproviding house sites to weaker sections and compensation was paidto the petitioner leaving a balance of Ac.0.35 guntas. He alleges thatthe second respondent is now issuing patta certificates to otherbeneficiaries belonging to Scheduled Caste without mentioning anysurvey number, and the fifth respondent is trying to mark out in thepetitioner’s patta land without acquiring the same under the LandAcquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, he filed the present Writ Petitionseeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents inoccupying the petitioner’s land without due process of law, as illegaland arbitrary. The petitioner also seeks a consequential direction torestrain the respondents from interfering with his possession.
At the stage of admission itself, the Mandal Revenue Officer,Kangti, filed a counter affidavit. In para 2 of the counter affidavit it isstated as under.
In reply to para 2 it is respectfully submitted that it isdenied that the respondents occupied the land Sy.No.39/1AA
to the extent of Ac.0.35 guntas and Sy.No.39/2E to the extentof Ac.2.16 guntas of Anthergaon Village, Kalher Mandalwithout following due process of law…
The Mandal Revenue Officer also denied that the respondentstried to issue pattas in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner inSurvey Nos.39/1AA and 39/2E. The counter was served on26.12.2006, and no reply affidavit is filed.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General-T), thisCourt is convinced that the Writ Petition is filed on a mereapprehension. When the respondents deny the allegation that there isan attempt to occupy the petitioner’s land for providing house sites, nofurther enquiry is necessary. According to the respondents, somepersons belonging to Scheduled Castes erected huts in the land of thepetitioner, and therefore, the petitioner has to seek remedy in commonlaw Court. No direction can be given to the respondents as prayed for.
The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is accordinglydismissed. No costs.
29.12.2006vs
____________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)