Telangana High Court
WP/27821/2007 of Smt.Saggu Girija, Vs The Tahsildhar, Bheemunipatnam, on 31 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No :27821 of 2007 DATED:31-12-2007 BETWEEN: Smt.Saggu Girija. ..... PETITIONER AND The Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District & 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
WRIT PETITION No :27821 of 2007
BETWEEN:
DATED:31-12-2007
Smt.Saggu Girija.
AND
..... PETITIONER
The Tahsildar,Bheemunipatnam,Visakhapatnam District & 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 petitioner as wellas the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing forthe respondents.
2. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring theaction of the respondents in attempting to forcibly dispossessthe petitioner from her lands of an extent of Ac.4.09 cents inSy.No.142/3 and an extent of Ac.2.23 cents in Sy.No.142/2 of Chippada village,Bheemunipatnam mandal, Visakhapatnam District withoutissuing any notice, without passing any order, and withoutgiving her an opportunity of being heard in spite of the reportssubmitted by the earlier Mandal Revenue Officer and RevenueDivisional Officer to the District Collector stating that the saidlands are her private lands, as illegal and arbitrary.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that one KedarisettiSatyanarayana was the owner and possessor of an extent ofAc.4.09 cents in Sy.No.142/3 of Chippada village,Bheemunipatnam mandal and his wife Sanyasamma owned anextent of Ac.2.23 cents in Sy.No.142/2 of the same village andthe said persons sold the property in favour of the petitionervide registered sale deed vide document No.3876, dated 08-09- 1988, for valuable consideration and thereafter the name of thepetitioner was also entered in the Settlement Register, 10(1)Adangal etc., and the suit filed by the vendor of the petitionerseeking injunction was already dismissed and the appeal wasalso dismissed. It is further stated that I.A.No.1215 of 2006 filedfor rectification of the entries in the revenue records regardingclassification proceedings is pending. While so, 1[st] respondenthas been making attempts to dispossess the petitioner byvisiting the site on 15-12-2007 along with the staff.
4. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitsthat the said land is recorded in the Government records as‘assessed waste dry’ ( gayalu ) and in the year 1967 the saidland was assigned in favour of the vendors of the petitioner videDKT D.R.No.961/71 and 1750/71 respectively in favour of thesaid Satyanarayana and his wife-Sanyasamma. As the said landwas admittedly alienated in favour of the petitioner in violation ofthe provisions of sub-Sections 1 and 2 of Section 3 of theA.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 noticeshave been issued to both the assignees as well as the personwho has been in possession, i.e. the petitioner herein, and asboth of them were not residing in the village notices were affixedunder cover of panchanama. Thus, it is stated that notices havebeen served by substitute service.
5. As the proceedings have been initiated for resumption ofthe land under the Act, I am of the opinion that it may not be correct to state that without following due process of lawpetitioner is sought to be dispossessed. As no final orders havebeen passed so far it is open for the petitioner to obtain thenotice under Rule 3 of the Rules and submit his explanationbefore any orders are passed.
6. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as tocosts.
_________________
V.ESWARAIAH,J
31[st] December, 2007.Tsy