Telangana High Court
WP/27359/2007 of G.Kantamma Vs The Mandal Revenue officer, Burampahad mandal on 27 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No :27359 of 2007 DATED:27-12-2007 BETWEEN: G.Kantamma. ..... PETITIONER AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Burgampahad mandal, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
WRIT PETITION No :27359 of 2007
DATED:27-12-2007
BETWEEN:
G.Kantamma.
AND
..... PETITIONER
The Mandal Revenue Officer,Burgampahad mandal,Khammam District.
.....RESPONDENT
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:
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as wellas the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing forthe respondent.
2. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring theaction of the respondent in interfering with the possession of thepetitioner over Ac.2.10 guntas of land in Sy.No.90/A/11 ofUppusaka village, Burgampahad mandal, Khammam District,without issuing any notice, as illegal, arbitrary, andunconstitutional.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the mother-in-law of thepetitioner settled an extent of Ac.2.10 guntas in Sy.No.90/A/11situated in Uppusaka village, Burgampahad mandal, KhammamDistrict in favour of the petitioner vide family settlement, dated10-01-1979, and based on the family settlement the name of thepetitioner was entered in the revenue records, and the pattadarpass books and title deeds have not been issued so far. Whileso, the officials of the respondent visited the site on 15-12-2007 and directed to furnish the documents andaccordingly petitioner filed available records i.e., pahanis from1959 to 2007, but without satisfying with the said pahanis therespondent is threatening the petitioner to dispossess himwithout following due process of law.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, withoutexpressing any opinion on the merits of the case, respondent is directed not to dispossess the petitioner without following dueprocess of law.
5. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as tocosts.
27[th] December, 2007.Tsy
_________________
V.ESWARAIAH,J