Telangana High Court
WP/27308/2005 of Kanchuboina Yellayya , Gandhi, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, on 23 December 2005
MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27308 of 2005 23.12.2005 Between: Kanchuboina Yellayya @ Gandhi, S/o. Late Appalaswamy ... Petitioners AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam And others ...Respondent THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27308 of 2005 ORDER: The
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.27308 of 2005
23.12.2005
Between:
Kanchuboina Yellayya @ Gandhi, S/o. Late Appalaswamy
AND
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam And others
... Petitioners
...Respondent
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
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.27308 of 2005
The petitioner is resident of Tagarapuvalasa village of Bheemunipatnam Mandal.He is allegedly in possession of land admeasuring Acs.0.48 in survey No.53/2. Itappears, an extent of Acs.0.25 in this land was acquired for NH.5 and remainingland is allegedly in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner made arepresentation seeking assignment of the land in survey No.53/2, in vain. In themeanwhile, the respondents 3 and 4 filed a caveat petition on the file of the Court ofJunior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam claiming that the Mandal Revenue Officerissued L.P.C. (Land Possession Certificate). Having come to know the same, thepetitioner filed the present writ petition alleging that the respondents 3 and 4 aretrying to dispossess him in the guise of assignment made by the second respondentin favour of them. The petitioners seeks inter alia a direction to respondents 1 and 2to consider the representation of the petitioner for assignment of the landadmeasuring Acs.0.23 in survey No.53/2 of Tagarapuvalasa.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on the averment/allegationmade by respondents 3 and 4 in the caveat petition filed by them on the file of theCourt of Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam. He submits that when the applicationmade by is pending, without considering the said application, assignment of the landin favour of respondents 3 and 4 is illegal and contrary to Board Standing OrderNo.15. Opposing the writ petition, at the stage of admission, the learned AssistantGovernment Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), after getting instructions, submitsthat the land has not been assigned to respondents 3 and 4, and second respondenthas never issued LPC. The writ petition is filed on mere apprehension. Secondly,she would urge that the land has a potentiality for being used as urban land andtherefore, the proposal/request of the petitioner for assignment of the land cannot beconsidered.
In view of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, thisCourt is of the considered opinion that the petitioner may approach the RevenueDivisional Officer and file appeal against the endorsement dated 06.5.2005 issuedby the second respondent whereby and whereunder he was informed that in view ofthe restriction on grant of pattas, the application of the petitioner cannot beconsidered. The appellate authority may pass appropriate orders within a period offour weeks from the date of filing of the appeal by the petitioner.
The writ petition, with the above observations and directions, is accordinglydismissed. No costs.
_____________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
December 23, 2005.
YS