Telangana High Court
WP/39008/2013 of Sri.Mohammed Abdul Waheed, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.39008 OF 2013 Dated 31st December 2013 BETWEEN: Sri Mohammed Abdul Waheed. …PETITIONER AND 1. The State of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad and one other. …RESPONDENTS
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO.39008 OF 2013
Dated 31st December 2013
BETWEEN:
Sri Mohammed Abdul Waheed.
…PETITIONER
AND
1. The State of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenuedepartment, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad and one other.
…RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. M.A.Basith Counsel for the respondents: Assistant Government Pleader forRevenue The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO.39008 OF 2013
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the allegation that respondentNo.2 has been unduly interfering with the petitioner’s possession ofthe property comprised in Municipal No.19-4-273/5/6 (Plot bearingNos.5
and 6) in Survey Nos.29 and 32/2 admeasuring 540 square yards atMeersagar, Hamlet of Mailardevpally Village, RajendranagarMunicipality, Ranga Reddy District.
The petitioner pleaded that he is the owner and possessor of the abovementioned properties purchased by him under registeredsale deed dated 25.02.1989. He has further pleaded that respondentNo.2 has been unduly interfering with his possession of the saidproperties without assigning any reason and when the petitioner hasapproached respondent No.2 to know the reason, the latter hasdirected the petitioner not to undertake any construction activity.
Page 1 of 2
Before filing this Writ Petition, the petitioner has not issuednotice to respondent No.2. In the absence of such notice, theaverments of the petitioner remain unsubstantiated. Ordinarily, beforeinvoking the jurisdiction of this Court, the aggrieved party mustapproach the competent authority demanding justice (See Kamini Kumar Choudhury v. State of West Bengal and Ors.[[1]]and Amritlal v. Collector, Central Excise (Revenue)[[2]]). The petitionerfailed to follow this basic procedure. The petitioner is thereforepermitted to make a detailed representation to respondent No.2. Onreceipt of such representation, respondent No.2 shall communicate hisresponse to the petitioner justifying his alleged act of interference. Ifthe petitioner feels aggrieved by such communication, he shall be freeto avail appropriate remedy.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as indicated above.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WP.MP.No.48465 of2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of asinfructuous.
_____________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
31[st] December 2013RRB
[1]AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2060AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2060
[2]AIR 1975 Supreme Court 538
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…