Telangana High Court
WP/25182/2004 of M. Balram, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 25182 of 2004 Between: M. Balram, S/o Late Agamaiah, R/o 2-1-390, New Gandhinagar,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO : 25182 of 2004
Between:
M. Balram, S/o Late Agamaiah,
R/o 2-1-390, New Gandhinagar, Nallakunta ( Lanka), Hyderabad - 44.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
2 The Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally, Hyderabad.
3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Musheerabad Mandal, VST Road, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased topass an order to issue a writ, direction or order more particularly a writ of Mandamusdirecting the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner dated 15-12-2004 in pursuance of GO. Ms. No. 515 dated 19-4-2003 and pass such other orderor orders which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of thecase.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. KISHORE RAI
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following :
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.
ORAL ORDER:
Petitioner submits that he has been in possession of land admeasuring to 110Sq.yards in R.S. No. 27 in T.S. No. 8 in Ward No.186, Block F, Baghlingampallyvillage of Musheerabad Mandal of Hyderabad District. The third respondent hereinfiled a land grabbing case in L.G.O.P.No.94 of 1989 on the file of the Chief Judge,City Civil Court at Hyderabad-cum-Special Tribunal under the A.P.Land Grabbing(Prohibition) Act, 1982, alleging that respondents are the owners of the said landand that the petitioner occupied the said land without any entitlement. The said O.Pwas allowed by an order dated 9.4.1997 on the ground that the petitioner failed toprove his title over the said land, and he was also fined Rs.10,000/- for unauthorizedoccupation. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal in L.G.A.No. 49 of 1997 before the Special Court, which was dismissed, with a modificationthat the petitioner is not liable to pay the compensation. But the Special Courtobserved that the judgment in O.P. 94 of 1989 would not come in the way of therespondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of hispossession over the schedule land, if he makes a representation for doing so.However, the petitioner has not been evicted from the schedule land till today inpursuance of the said order.
It is further submitted that the Government has issued G.O.Ms. No. 515 dated 19-4-2002, specifying certain guidelines for regularization of encroachments by way ofdwelling houses and government land situated in areas notified in the 1991 censusand Industrial townships, stipulating certain conditions on payment of government value or free of cost in the event of the applicant being below poverty line. It is hisfurther case that the petitioner falls under the category of below poverty line and thatin spite of his requests from time to time, and his application dated 15-12-2004; the2[nd] respondent herein has not regularized his occupation over the schedule land.Hence the writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the petitionerhas not been evicted from the schedule land in pursuance of the order in O.P.94 of1989 and as on today he is in occupation of the said land. On the other hand, it isalso not the case of the petitioner that the respondents are trying to evict him fromthe schedule land under the guise of the said order. In such a case it cannot be saidthat there is threat to the petitioner from the respondents. In those circumstances, Iam of the opinion that the petitioner is not in urgent need of any order nor anydirection be given to the respondents. However, as the application dated 15-12-2004 being made by the petitioner is pending with the 2[nd] respondent, it is for the2[nd] respondent to consider the same in due course.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage ofadmission. No costs.
mdaa 31-12-2004
----------------------
Copy to:
1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
2 The Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally, Hyderabad.
3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Musheerabad Mandal, VST Road, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
4. Two C.Cs to G.P.for Revenue, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT)
5. Two C.D.copies.