Telangana High Court
WP/20727/2002 of Gundebommu Rayellu Vs The Assisant Commissioner, on 24 December 2007
G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.20727 of 2002 Dated this the 24th day of December, 2007 Between: Gundebommu Rayellu … Petitioner AND The Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, Ongole, Prakasam District … Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.20727 of 2002 ORDER: This Writ
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU
W.P.No.20727 of 2002
Dated this the 24[th] day of December, 2007
Between:
Gundebommu Rayellu … Petitioner
AND
The Asst. Commissioner of Endowments,
Ongole, Prakasam District … Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU
W.P.No.20727 of 2002
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 has been filed by the petitioner seeking todeclare that the action of the respondents in conducting auction on07.10.2002 in respect of the petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.4.50cents in Survey No.136/2 situated at Deveram village, Darsi Mandal ofPrakasam District is illegal and arbitrary and against the principles ofnatural justice and also sought for consequential relief of notdispossessing the petitioner from the land in question.
2) It is contended by the petitioner that the father of the petitionerwas absolute owner of the disputed land. Their family was cultivatingthe same without anybody’s obstruction by paying fee to thePanchayat Raj Department. The majority of the lands in his villagehave no registration except occupation from the forefathers onwards. The revenue records also disclose that the petitioner is in possessionand enjoyment of the property. Surprisingly, a tom tom was made inthe village to the effect that the leasehold rights of the disputed landwill be put to auction by the Village President, as per the instructions ofthe authorities of the Endowments Department on 12.08.2002.
3) It is represented by the learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 that for the similar relief, W.P.No.15803 of 2002was filed and no relief was granted in the said writ petition. He furthersubmitted that the auction period of the impugned proceedings wasover, therefore, the writ petition has become infractuous.
4) The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowmentsappearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 requested time to verifythe correctness of the representation made by the petitioner, but hecould not get any instructions.
5) Since the auction period of two years with effect from07.10.2002 covered by the impugned notice was over, it is observedthat no fresh auction was conducted. In the light of the abovecircumstances, the writ petition has become infractuous.
6) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infractuous. No costs.
__________________
Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, JDate: 24.12.2007Isn