Telangana High Court
WP/39947/2012 of Madiga Reservation Porata Samithi, Vs The District Collector, on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.39947 of 2012 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the 1st respondent, in not considering the various representations submitted by the petitioner dated 14.7.2008, 15.9.2008 and 10.12.2012 for issuance of pattas in favour
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANWRIT PETITION No.39947 of 2012
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:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the 1[st]respondent, in not considering the various representationssubmitted by the petitioner dated 14.7.2008, 15.9.2008 and10.12.2012 for issuance of pattas in favour of the members of thepetitioner – Samithi in respect of land in Sy.No.134, 135 and 136 ofRaptadu village and mandal, Anantapur District and in trying toevict them without following the due process of law, as illegal andarbitrary. A consequential direction is sought to the respondentsto issue house site pattas to them in respect of the said land.
The petitioners claim to have raised construction on thesubject lands, and have filed photographs in support of the saidsubmission. While fairly stating that the members of the petitioner– society had occupied the subject lands, and had constructedsmall dwelling structures thereupon, Sri Chetluru Srinivas,Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that all themembers of the petitioner Samithi belong to scheduled castes;they are landless poor; the subject land is classified in the revenuerecords as “Government poramboke”; and, instead of demolishingthe structures, it would be just and proper that members of thepetitioner Samithi be assigned the subject land over whichstructures have been raised by them.
When the matter came up on 27.12.2012, LearnedGovernment Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) sought time toobtain instructions. Today the Learned Government Pleader, oninstructions, would submit that the subject land is classified in the revenue records as “Government poramboke”; and some personshave raised structures on the subject land.
Once possession over the subject land, and structureshaving been raised thereupon, is admitted, the only manner inwhich those in occupation can be evicted is only in accordancewith law. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to direct therespondents not to evict the existing occupants, or demolish thesubject structures, except in accordance with law including theprovisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. This orderdoes not preclude the respondents from considering therepresentations filed by the petitioners afresh, and pass orders inaccordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.The Miscellaneous Petition pending, if any, shall also standdisposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs.
___________
28-12-2012
asp