Telangana High Court
WP/13146/2002 of K.Sriramulu, Vs The Commissioner of Seri Culture, on 30 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13146 of 2002 Between: K.Sriramulu, S/o. K.Siddaiah Naidu, R/o. SBI Colony,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 13146 of 2002
Between:
K.Sriramulu, S/o. K.Siddaiah Naidu, R/o. SBI Colony, Madanapalle, Chittoor District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Commissioner of Seri Culture,
Road No.72, Jublee Hills,
Near Water Tank, Hyderabad.
2 The Assistant Director of Seri Culture, Madanapalle, Chittoor District.
3 The District Collector,
Chittoor, Chittoor District.
4 The Mandal Revenue Officer,
Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District.
5 Smt.Shakeela, W/o. K.Sardar Ali,
R/o. Old Charaka Complex, CTM Road,
Opp: To Devata Nagar, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the natureof writ of Mandamus : Declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in issuingproceeidngs RC.No.16/NFS/99/T dt. 19.1.2002 is illegal, arbitrary andunconstitutional, and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300 (A) Constitution ofIndia and also contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequentlysuspend the proceedings RC.No.16/NFS/99/T dt/ 19.1.2002 issued byrespondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.5 and also direct therespondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment ofthe petitioners land in Survey No.1050/2, 1051/2, 1051/1 and 1051/2 of anextent of 0.30 Cents, 0.09 Cents and 0.37 Cents situated at KondamaripalleH/o. Basinikonda Village, Madanapalle Revenue Mandal, Chittoor Districtand to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following :
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
W.P.No.13146 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 is filed challenging the proceedings dated19.01.2002, issued by the Assistant Director of Sericulture-secondrespondent herein allotting a plot of land admeasuring 35’X30’ from theGovernment vacant land at Old Charka Complex, CTM Road, Madanapallein favour of the fifth respondent.
The petitioner states that one Mr.Ravi, ex-serviceman was allotted anextent of 0.76 cents of land in R.S.Nos. 1050/2, 1051/1 and 1052/2,Kondamaripalle revenue village of Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District, byproceedings dated 19-08-1990, and that he had alienated the said land in hisfavour through sale deed dated 11.10.2001. The petitioner states that he isundertaking sericulture activity in the said land. The complaint of thepetitioner is that on the strength of the impugned order, the fifth respondent istrying to encroach into his property.
The second respondent filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that theland allotted to the ex-serviceman- Mr.Ravi was already handed over toSericulture Department in the year 1983. According to them, the assignmentof the land in favour of Mr.Ravi and alienation to the petitioner would not haveany effect on the department. It is stated that the fifth respondent was allottedthe plot through the impugned order to enable her to do sericulture activity.Second respondent states that in view of the interim orders passed by thiscourt and on finding the land covered by the impugned order is part of the onepurchased by the petitioner, alternative site was allotted to the fifthrespondent.
The fifth respondent filed a counter affidavit almost repeating thecontentions advanced on behalf of the second respondent. She challengedthe sale in favour of the petitioner on the ground that it is in contravention ofthe conditions of the assignment.
Heard Sri P.Jagadish Chandra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitionerand learned Government Pleader for Revenue. None appears for the fifthrespondent.
The property covered by the impugned order is not described in detail.However, the allegation of the petitioner that the fifth respondent tried tooccupy part of his land on the strength of the impugned order, is not disputed.The land purchased by the petitioner was earlier assigned to the Ex-serviceman. Though lands assigned by the Government are not permitted tobe alienated, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1993enabling the ex-serviceman to alienate the land assigned to him after expiryof 10 years from the assignment. Respondents cannot take any objection forthe sale in favour of the petitioner since it is covered by the G.O. Ms.No.1117.
The second respondent allotted the land obviously not being aware ofthe assignment of the same in favour of Mr.Ravi, much less the alienation ofthe same in favour of the petitioner. After coming to know about these factsand in view of the interim orders passed by this court, alternative site wasallotted to the fifth respondent. For all practical purposes, the impugned orderstands annulled with allocation of alternative site to the fifth respondent.Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
____________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J
To1.2CCs to2.2CD copies
Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ANURADHA}
..... REGISTRAR// TRUE COPY //SECTION OFFICER