Telangana High Court
WP/26785/2007 of P. Lelavathi D/o Chinappanna Vs The District Collector, on 27 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.26785 of 2007 Date: 27-12-2007 Between: 1.P.Leelavathi and 33 others. …Petitioners and 1. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.26785 of 2007 Date:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
WRIT PETITION No.26785 of 2007Date:27-12-2007
Between:
1.P.Leelavathi and 33 others. …Petitioners
and
1.The District Collector,
Visakhapatnam District and 2 others.…RespondentsTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
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.26785 of 2007
Date:27-12-2007
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamusdeclaring the inaction of the respondents in issuing ‘D’ Form pattasin favour of the petitioners with respect to an extent of Ac.30-00cents of Government land situated in various survey numbers ofKunchavanipalem Village, Nagavaram Gramapanchayat,Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as arbitrary, andconsequently to direct the respondents not to dispossess thepetitioners from the said lands.
In the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is statedthat the petitioners are landless poor persons and they have beencultivating and eking out their livelihood on the income derived fromthe excess lands of the Government situated in various surveynumbers of Nagavaram Village, Munagapaka Mandal,Visakhapatnam District, and they made a representation before thefirst respondent-District Collector, Visakhapatnam, on 11-07-2005 requesting to assign an extent of one acre of land to each petitioner. Subsequently, another representation dated 10-01-2005 was also filed by them, and it was referred to the thirdrespondent-Tahasildar, Munagapaka, for taking necessary action.The petitioners’ grievance is that the said representations have notyet been considered and disposed of.
It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that thepetitioners are landless poor persons and as such, they are entitledfor assignment of the excess lands of the Government.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition isdisposed of directing the third respondent-Tahasildar to considerthe petitioners’ representations, purported to have been forwardedby the first respondent-District Collector to him, and passappropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. No order as tocosts.
LUR
27-12-2007
-----------------