Telangana High Court

WP/27971/2005 of Geddada Magamani Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasapuram, on 30 December 2005

SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.27971 OF 2005 DATED:30.12.2005 Between: Geddada Nagamani …Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasapuram, West Godavari District and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.27971 OF

WRIT PETITION NO.27971 OF 2005

DATED:30.12.2005

Between:Geddada Nagamani

And

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasapuram,West Godavari District and others …Petitioner …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

WRIT PETITION NO.27971 OF 2005

ORDER:

The petitioner claims to be owner of land admeasuring 1165 Sq.yards inR.S.No.692/1-A of Veeravasaram Village, hamlet of Nandamuru Garavu MinorPanchayat. Third respondent has property on the northern side of the petitioner’sproperty. Apprehending that third respondent might dispossess the petitioner byencroaching into the land, the petitioner filed a suit being O.S.No.619 of 2005 on thefile of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, and obtained adinterim injunction in I.A.No.509 of 2005, dt.21.10.2005 which is valid upto29.12.2005. In the meanwhile, third respondent made a complaint to first respondentalleging that the petitioner herein closed the pathway in R.S.No.692/1-B whereuponthe first respondent issued a notice dt.16.12.2005 calling upon petitioner and third respondent to appear before him with necessary documents to conduct enquiry intothe matter. Aggrieved by this, present Writ Petition is filed seeking invalidation of thenotice of enquiry dt.16.12.2005.

Page 1 of 2

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AssistantGovernment Pleader for Revenue (General), this Court is not able to agree with thesubmission of the counsel for the petitioner that the notice issued by first respondentis illegal on the ground that the suit filed by the petitioner is pending. The allegationmade by third respondent is to the effect that the petitioner encroached upon thepathway and being revenue authority it is incumbent on the part of the firstrespondent to conduct enquiry into the matter. Further, the petitioner alreadyapproached the Civil Court and if there is any interference in possession of theproperty owned by the petitioner excluding the pathway, it is always open to thepetitioner to file another application before the Civil Court. The invocation of publiclaw remedy in the background of the case is improper.

The Writ Petition for the above reasons is accordingly dismissed.

_______________

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

30.12.2005

bnr

Page 2 of 2

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