Telangana High Court
WP/39033/2013 of P. Venugopal Rao, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by the on 31 December 2013
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39033 of 2013 Date:31.12.2013 Between: P.Venugopal Rao, S/o Satya Rao and another. ..... Petitioners And: The Govt of AP, reptd by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and four others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri
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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.39033 of 2013
Date:31.12.2013
Between:
P.Venugopal Rao,
S/o Satya Rao and another.
And:
The Govt of AP, reptd by the PrincipalSecretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabadand four others.
..... Petitioners
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Balaji Meda MalliCounsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following:ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declarethe action of the respondents, in trying to evict thepetitioners from their properties admeasuring 30 x 70square yards and 50 x 42 square yards, respectively, inWard No.29, T.S.No.145 of Vizianagaram (for short ‘thesubject property’), without following due process of law,as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioners pleaded that as far back as the year2007, they were granted certificates evidencing deliveryof possession of the residential plots; that since then theyhave been residing in the said plots after constructinghouses; and that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have beentrying to evict them on the purported ground that they arein occupation of tank lands. According to the petitioners, the tank has become defunct about 50 years back. Theyhave also pleaded that unless appropriate proceedings inlaw are initiated, the respondents cannot interfere withtheir possession, more so, when their possession wasrecognized under the certificates issued by respondentNo.4 in the year 2007.
In the light of the above grievance of the petitioners,respondent No.4 is directed not to interfere with thepetitioners’ physical possession of the subject propertywithout initiating the proceedings under the provisions ofAndhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition isdisposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition,W.P.M.P.No.48490 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.
____________________________
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNAREDDY
31[st] December, 2013DR